The Barnes Review, JULY/AUGUST 2002

Citation preview

the Barnes Review . . . TO BRING HISTORY INTO ACCORD WITH THE FACTS

5

In the Tradition of the Father of Historical Revisionism, Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes

JULY/AUGUST 2002

❖

VOLUME VIII

❖

NUMBER 4

Table of Contents 5 The Problem of Israel

47 The Byzantine State Reexamined

ISSA NAKLEH

DR. M. RAPHAEL JOHNSON

Many crimes have been committed against the natives of Palestine ever since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1947. . . .

Byzantium, generally thought of (if at all) as some sort of backwater of civilization, was in fact ahead of its time in a number of areas including architecture, medicine and statecraft. . . .

17 Ethnic Cleansing of Germans MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN

51 A New Look at an Old Villain

In one of the world’s worst holocausts ever, approximately 20 million Germans were the victims of genocide after World War II. . . .

GEOFFREY MUIRDEN Although denigrated as a mere appeaser to Hitler’s Germany, Neville Chamberlain, it turns out, was one tough cookie. . . .

33

27 Was ‘The Holocaust’ All That Special? MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER

53 America’s Role in the Opium Wars

How come everyone is taught that 6 million Jews died under Hitler, but hardly anyone knows how many Americans died in World War II? . . .

STEPHEN J. MARTIN

29

Vampire Killers

The Opium Wars were not just an Anglo-Chinese affair, as you might think. Actually America was seriously involved, which may yet lead us to disaster with the emerging superpower of Red China. . . .

ISRAEL SHAMIR Thanks to the holocaust cult, Israel rakes in billions of dollars, while other persecuted groups get nothing. Could it be a matter of clout? . . .

31 Old Glory: Good Enough for All RICHARD LLOYD JAMES We who live in America should be loyal to America, not to some foreign power. . . .

58 The Night of the Long Knives GEN. LEON DEGRELLE Hitler’s old friend, Ernst Röhm, was plotting to overthrow the chancellor. Hitler eventually decided that Röhm would have to die, preferably by his own hand. But would the charismatic SA leader actually take his own life? . . .

67 The Hidden History of the Ninja 33 Perceptions on 9-11

JOHN TIFFANY

RUSS GRANATA An even-handed policy in the Middle East might have averted the attacks of September 11, 2001, an American educator argues. . . .

An overall survey of the history of the legendary secret ninja warriors of Old Japan is pieced together from the fragmentary documents and exaggerated folk tales surrounding this mysterious group. . . .

37 North America’s Ancient Miners

71 Christianity Under the Swastika

FRED RYDHOLM

MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN

Vast quantities of copper were extracted in ancient times from the rich deposits located in the Lake Superior country. But by who? . . .

People often cite Adolf Hitler’s “ill treatment of the Christians” to justify their dislike of Germany’s illfated leader. This story argues otherwise. . . .

51

53

Personal from the Editor

I

n terms of driving home the anger, frustraIn any event, the articles in this issue of tion and resulting violence pervading the TBR, focusing not only on the problem of Israel, modern Middle East—a direct consequence but other controversies surrounding the Zionist of Israel’s displacement of a million native state, will definitely capture your interest. Christian and Muslim Palestinians—one Of course, there’s much more. TBR brings can hardly find a better example than the provocayou a wide range of thought-provoking insights tive illustration on the cover of this issue of TBR. you’ll find in no other history magazine. From Shown is a poster widely plastered about ancient to modern, from Byzantium to Britain to “the Arab street” hailing Yahya Ayyash, a leader of China to Japan and elsewhere, you’ll find it here, the Palestinian rebel group, Hamas. Assassinated including the latest installment of the popular by Israel in 1996, Ayyash is popularly remembered reminiscences of the late Belgian General Leon as “The Engineer”—the mastermind of the Hamas Degrelle who was—until his tragic death in 1994 strategy of suicide attacks against Israel. —the last surviving world-class figure from the While critics will scream we are “supporting period. GEN. LEON DEGRELLE terrorism” by publishing this image, note that TBR In that regard, we’re pleased to announce picked up this depiction from Harper’s—an that TBR is now engaged in an important, all-new American journal never known as an advocate of Islamic terror- endeavor—“The Degrelle Project”—which will bring a whole new ism. array of Degrelle’s reminscinces alive to 21st century audiences. TBR publishes this eye-catching tableau precisely because We’re proud to have the firm endorsement of Madame Jeanne it relates to a series of related stories in this issue about Israel Degrelle for this project—more about which in the months ❖ and the Palestine problem. ahead. Although graphic news about Middle East violence fills our television screens, chokes the radio waves and occupies many column inches in the press, the average American has little knowledge of the true history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Publisher: W. A. CARTO What is presented is invariably the Israeli point of view. Associate Editor: JOHN TIFFANY Our lead story, “The Israel Problem,” comes from a most Associate Editor: M. RAPHAEL JOHNSON, PH.D. Contributing Editor: MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER distinguished author: Dr. Issa Nakleh, the senior Arab diplomat Contributing Editor: FRED BLAHUT on American soil today. A Palestinian Christian, Dr. Nakleh is Art & Production Director: PAUL T. ANGEL longtime representative of the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine and an unabashed friend of TBR. We are proud to proTHE BARNES REVIEW (ISSN 1078-4799) is published bimonthly by TBR Co., 645 Pennvide him this modest opportunity to explain the Palestinian side sylvania Avenue SE, Suite #1,Washington, D.C. 20003. Periodical rate postage paid at Washington, D.C. and additional mailing offices. For credit card orders including subscriptions, of the story. call toll-free 1-877-773-9077 to use Visa or MasterCard. Other inquiries cannot be hanNow here’s some news you’ll find astounding: certain dled through the toll free number. For changes of address, subscription questions, status American Holocaust revisionists are loathe to delve into the of order and bulk distribution inquiries, please call 909-587-6936. All editorial (only) inquiries please call 703-737-6100. All rights reserved except that copies or reprints may be issue of Palestine, despite the fact ceaseless “Holocaust” propamade without permission so long as proper credit and contact information is given for ganda revolves around the Middle East conflict. TBR and no changes are made. All manuscripts submitted must be typewritten and douJust recently, a renowned Jordanian academic, Dr. Ibrahim blespaced. No responsibility can be assumed for unreturned manuscripts. Change of address: Send your old, incorrect mailing label and your new, correct address neatly printAlloush—who has no qualms about discussing the facts—not the ed or typed 30 days before you move to assure delivery. Advertising: MEDIA PLACEMENT myths—about the Holocaust, was “disinvited” by the “new manSERVICE, Ms Sharon DeWitt, 301-722-1948 or fax 301-722-2810. Website: www.barnesreview.org. Emails—Business Office: [email protected] Editorial: [email protected]. agement” of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) from speaking at an IHR meeting because his pro-Palestinian views POSTMASTER: Send address changes to THE BARNES REVIEW, were deemed “too controversial.” P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003. The IHR’s fearless leaders feared that giving Alloush a SUBSCRIPTION RATES (ALL ISSUES MAILED IN CLOSED ENVELOPES) forum would be “too political” and deemed as endorsing terrorU.S.A. ism. To the surprise of no one who has watched the ugly demise Periodical Rate: 1 year, $46 2 years, $78 of the old IHR, this outrage places the IHR’s handful of intrigFirst Class: 1 year, $70 2 years, $124 uers in the camp of the forces so determined to destroy Holocaust Foreign Countries: All payments must be in U.S. dollars. Regular Surface: 1 year, $58 2 years, $102 Revisionism. Foreign Airmail: 1 year 2 years Astounded by the IHR’s slap at this scholar—who faced Canada and Mexico $72 $130 sanction even in his own country for raising questions about the Western Hemisphere $80 $144 Europe $88 $161 Holocaust, TBR invited Dr. Alloush to address its own June 14Asia and Africa $95 $176 Pacific Rim $96 $178 16 international conference. Quantity Prices: 1-3 $10 each Unfortunately, professional committments prevented All(Current issue U.S.A.): 4-7 $9 each 8-19 $8 each oush from attending. However, we have assured Dr. Alloush that 20 and more $7 each he will always be welcome at future TBR events. In the meanBound Volumes: $99 per year for years 1996-2001 (Vols. II-VII) time, if you wish wish to judge for yourself and find out what Dr. Library Style Binder for one year: $25 each; year & volume indicated. Alloush has to say, check out his website at: fav.net.

the Barnes review



Editorial



AN INEXCUSABLE CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

U

nlike the highly publicized meetings of the G7 or the World Economic Forum, the annual meeting of Bilderberg suspiciously attracted no significant protest. It has always been the opinion of this writer that the leftist “opposition” to the New World Order was a creation of the regime itself, and the lack of protest against this organization—the ruling class of the ruling class—only confirms that suspicion. This year, the masters of planet Earth, informally dubbed Bilderberg from the name of the European hotel where the group first met in the 1950s, met in TBR’s backyard, in Chantilly, Virginia, at the 5-star Westfields Marriott in Fairfax County. Unlike previous years, this hotel is extremely secluded, easy to patrol and covered by hundreds of trees that made normal reporting and monitoring nearly impossible. The long driveway from the street to the hotel entrance was easy to keep secure and the hapless protesters from the American Free Press and TBR became the butt of inside jokes. Paul Smith took a bus in from Mesa, Arizona, to take part in this protest, protesting by himself for a full day before the three of us arrived. The police even began bringing him water, so hot was the weekend. Nonetheless, with meetings held in regimented secrecy, even a handful of reporters kept the proceedings jumpy. Security from every conceivable jurisdiction, as well as private Bilderberg goons, milled around nervously, following this writer, Chris Bollyn, Paul Smith and Jim Tucker around the grounds of the Marriott as we took pictures and asked inconvenient questions. Any gaps in the treeline were plugged with hotel buses, so fearful was security of a car bomb. Federal security wore strange and ominous occult symbols on their lapels, and reacted angrily whenever we asked of their meaning. However, Fairfax County police were professional and friendly. U.S. military security also occasionally wandered to our direction. Fairfax County residents complained of the endless helicopter noise, and the weekend was full of Lear jet sightings all over northern Virginia. White House security was present, though sitting presidents normally do not attend Bilderberg. As always, even local media refused to report the event, proving that the tentacles of the regime reach to all levels, and that the practice of journalism in American is very close to whoredom. On Thursday, May 30th, our contingent was able to mill around the hotel, sitting at the bar and searching for familiar faces. Security immediately recognized Jim Tucker and would find endless excuses to walk near us keeping a militant and

angry ear on our conversations. Official looking, yet attractive, women would suddenly become very friendly and talkative to us as we sat in the lounge, asking probing questions as to our plans. This writer approached the sign-in desk pretending to be a graduate student who was very interested in such meetings and asked politely for the agenda of the confab. One of the women spoke in Dutch to security before informing me that this was a “closed conference” and I would need to presently leave. Numerous men in and out of uniform materialized out of nowhere near the table as I protested. Soon, Chris and Jim were thrown out. All guests were kicked out at 1:30 in the afternoon. At the very least, of course, Bilderberg was reminded that no matter how secret they try to keep their meetings, no matter how secluded their resorts, a handful of people, at least, will always be keeping tabs on them. The absence of the left was very suspicious, suggesting that the meetings of lower-level functionaries were permitted to be protested, but the rulers of the rulers are far more capable of controlling their streetlevel minions. This Bilderberg conference, thanks to American Free Press and other independent media, was widely publicized online, but the left, even in perfect weather and during a time where all college semesters were completed, refused to show. When one couples that with the fact that the demands of the street protests in other cities are precisely that which the ruling class has been promoting in academia and elsewhere, one is immediately struck by the fact that the regime has seemed to have fashioned its own opposition, one that represents the militant left wing of the ruling class and gives the illusion of “popular rebellion.” In fact, Rockefellerfounded institutions such as Planned Parenthood and the World Watch Institute have been demanding the identical programs for years. Unsurprisingly, the agenda, gleaned from the contacts Bilderberg specialist Jim Tucker cultivated on the inside, was quite predictable. The creation of a UN-controlled superstate, a global tax, the destruction of nationalism and the use of NATO as global policeman are the main thrusts of the present ruling class. The fact that, more or less, this was the agenda of Bilderberg is undoubtable proof that this is the “global agenda.” Of course, nationalism, as always, is the enemy. It is, now without doubt, the philosophy of resistance. Leftism, in its various ❖ forms, is a tool of the regime. —MRJ

THE BARNES REVIEW

3

It is unlikely we will ever determine which of the cities currently contending for the honor of being oldest is the more ancient. However, one of the leading contenders is Jericho, a Palestinian city, located near a permanent spring a few miles west of the Jordan River. There are indications of settlement after 9000 B.C. This settlement grew to city status by 7000 B.C., and is perhaps the oldest continuously occupied city on Earth. The Hebrews, or Israelites, were Johnnies-come-lately in the region, as they did not appear in the Jericho area (or anywhere in Palestine) until about the 13th century B.C., and disappeared from Palestine a few centuries later. Yet now the Jews, who claim to be descended from the Israelites, allege that they have a right to take this land away from the natives, who have lived here since the stone age.

The Israel Problem BY ISSA NAKLEH, LL.B.

In the weeks and months preceding the September 11, 2001, attacks on Manhattan and the Pentagon, a global upsurge of anti-Zionist feelings culminated in the dramatic UN Conference on Racism and Colonialism in Durban, South Africa. Thousands of delegates witnessed massive street demonstrations by hordes of people, mostly Third Worlders. The protesters were shrill and nearly riotous, with their graphic posters and slogans. Israel was repeatedly condemned as a terrorist state, and the delegates were largely in agreement with the protesters. Before the world press, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan bluntly told the Israelis to stop using the “holocaust” as a pretext to brutalize the Palestinian people in their own homeland. Here is a look at the history of the Jewish state in Palestine, which is so relevant to what is happening in America and the world today.

Part 1 The Crime of Genocide Committed Against the Palestinian People The Palestinians are 75 percent Muslims and 25 percent Christians. They are the descendants of all the races and nations that have lived in Palestine from the times of the Canaanites to the British occupation of Palestine in 1918. The Christians among them are descendants of the first Christians, who adopted Christianity at the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. The Muslims are those who were either Christians or pagans and who adopted Islam after the Arab conquest of Palestine in the 7th century A.D. Before 1918, when Palestine was occupied by Britain, the Palestinians had self-rule under the Ottoman regime. They had several representatives in the Ottoman Parlia ment and many of them were high officials in the government including judges in the high court. Article XXII of the Covenant of the League of Nations recognized the people of Palestine as a “provisionally independent nation subject to the rendering of administrative assistance and advice by a Mandatory until the people of Palestine are able to stand alone.” While the Mandate of Palestine was being drafted, the Zionists pressured the British Government and the Allied Powers to inject the Balfour Declaration in it.

Britain ruled Palestine from 1918 until 1948. The Palestinians made many revolutions against the British government demanding their independence (which was given to many countries placed under mandates). In 1938 the British government issued a White Paper granting Palestine independence within 10 years and the establishment of a democratic government representing the Palestinian majority and Jewish minority. The Jews carried out a campaign of terrorism against the Palestinians and against the British government from 1938 to 1948. In 1947, the British government submitted the case of Palestine to the United Nations. On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly decided to partition Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state. The areas of the Arab state and the Jewish state were precisely defined by the UN. In 1948, the Jewish minority in Palestine declared Israel as a Jewish state and requested recognition by America, the Soviet Union, and the UN within the boundaries defined by the Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947. In November 1947, trouble began between the Palestinian majority and the Jewish minority. Although the Jewish minority had a great deal of weapons which was supplied to them by the British government and by the Soviet Union through Czechoslovakia, the Palestinians, although they had fewer weapons, defeated the Jews in every battle. Palestinian victories continued until the end of March 1948. The Jews committed the massacre of Deir Yasin on April 9, 1948.

THE BARNES REVIEW

5

The Zionist forces massacred 300 men, women and children. This massacre was a great tragedy which frightened the Palestinians in their villages. Zionist forces, with the help of the British forces and the British Glubb Pasha, leader of the Jordanian army, were able to occupy 12 cities and 625 villages in 80 percent of Palestine. Zionist forces committed more than 50 massacres throughout Palestine and were able to expel 850,000 Christians and Muslims from these 12 cities and 625 villages. The Zionists violated the terms of Resolution 181 (II) of November 29, 1947, and Resolution 194 (III) of 1948 and committed war crimes—crimes against humanity and genocide against the Palestinians as follows: 1. They violated the territorial integrity of Palestine and occupied 80 percent thereof; 2. They expelled from Palestine more than 850,000 Palestinian Arabs by violence and massacres; 3. They prevented the Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes; 4. They erased from the map of Palestine 492 Arab small towns and villages and usurped all of the houses, lands and properties of the Palestinian Arabs in these towns and villages; 5. They usurped about 95 percent of the houses, apartments and commercial buildings of Palestinians in 12 cities, namely Safad, Tiberias, Acre, Beisan, Haifa, Jaffa, Lydda, Ramleh, New Jerusalem, Majdal, Beersheba and Ainkarem; 6. They looted, pillaged and plundered all of the furniture, machinery, equipment, merchandise and all worldly possessions of the Palestinian Arabs in 80 percent of Palestine; 7. They destroyed and desecrated Christian and Muslim holy places. They destroyed or profaned 400 Muslim mosques and plowed 400 Muslim cemeteries and the remains of the dead; 8. They violated the right of self-determination of the Palestinian Arabs, their sovereignty over their wealth and natural resources, and their political, civil, proprietary and religious rights and made the Palestinians a refugee nation, thereby committing the crime of genocide.

Crimes Committed by the Israelis Against the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza 1967 Until 2001 In 1967, Israel launched a war of aggression and occupied 20 percent of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza. They expelled 300,000 Palestinians from the region, usurped 75 percent of the lands of the Palestinians and established 200 Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. They transferred Israeli citizens to these settlements. At present there are 350,000 Israeli citizens living in these settlements. They arrested, imprisoned and tortured 850,000 Palestinian men, women and children. They established roads between Jewish settlements and roads connecting these settlements to Israel, thereby destroying the integrity of the West Bank. They usurped and polluted 90 percent of the water resources of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

6

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

Crimes Committed by the Israelis Against the Palestinians During the Intifada of 2000-2001 On September 28, 2000, the leader of the Likud Party of Israel, the war criminal Ariel Sharon, with the consent of the other war criminal Ehud Barak, carried out a premeditated and provocative visit to Al-Haram Al-Sharif, accompanied by 2,000 armed Israeli soldiers and police. The visit caused a serious outcry among the Palestinian people, who felt that their most important holy site was being invaded, and led to serious clashes between Palestinian protesters and Israeli army and police forces in Jerusalem. Israeli forces attacked Palestinians with firearms, rockets and missiles, from helicopters and tanks, killing more than 500 people and injuring more than 25,000. The Israelis destroyed more than 2,000 Palestinian homes and damaged their furniture. Israelis uprooted more than 100,000 olive and fruit trees and used bulldozers to destroy farms and crops in the West Bank and Gaza. Since 1967, the Israelis have arrested and imprisoned more than 1 million Palestinian men and women and tortured them in their prisons and concentration camps. The Palestinians today are a population of 8 million. They are the only nation in the world which is a member of the UN but not independent.1 There are 1.1 million Palestinians living in Israel as third-class citizens. There are 3.1 million living in the West Bank and Gaza under the barbaric Israeli occupation. There are 3.8 million Palestinians living in refugee camps in neighboring Arab countries. The Israelis, since 1948, killed 200,000 Palestinians and injured more than 300,000. The Israelis robbed the Palestinians of their national wealth throughout 80 percent of Palestine and robbed 75 percent of Palestinian lands in the West Bank and Gaza. The Israelis established 200 Jewish settlements and robbed Palestinians of 90 percent of their water resources. The Israelis stole Palestinian lands and constructed more than 50 roads between Jewish settlements and Israel, thereby dividing the area of the West Bank into different cantons separated from each other. All these crimes constitute genocide committed by the Israelis against the Palestinians. Congress and the U.S. administration, which supports Israel financially, militarily and politically in the UN, are accessories to these war crimes—crimes against humanity and genocide committed by the Israelis. According to international law, the Palestinians are entitled to try as war criminals 5,000 political and military leaders of Israel who committed these crimes. These criminals constitute all members of all Israeli cabinets and top military officers who served in the Israeli army since 1948. In order to settle the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, the following steps should be taken: 1. Israel must withdraw to its boundaries recognized by the Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947; 2. Israel must allow the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands, which have been usurped since 1948;

Some 15,000 olive trees were destroyed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip between the start of the current Palestinian uprising on September 28, 2000 to December 8 of 2000 alone, says a Palestinian human rights group. Israeli forces cite security reasons. But Arabs say that olive trees are more than mere hiding places for snipers. Their destruction is an economic and symbolic attack that is profoundly disheartening to Palestinians. In a recent such incident, an Israeli bulldozer tears down the olive trees of Palestinian farmer Abdul Aziz Khuteneh on March 20, 2001, to make a new road for Jewish “settlers” just outside the West Bank town of Hebron. Khuteneh is seen being dragged away by an Israeli soldier who appears to be laughing. He collapsed after the incident and had to be hospitalized.

3. Israel must restitute to Palestinians all their homes, lands, farms, furniture, other possessions and money, which have been usurped from them since 1948; 4. The Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza must be given to the Palestinians as part compensation for the properties usurped by Israel since 1948; 5. Israel must pay to the Palestinians hundreds of billions of dollars as compensation for the crimes of genocide committed against them by Israel.

Part 2 Religious Rabbis, Their Followers & Racism I want to quote to you from two books. The first one, Israel’s Fateful Hour, is by Israeli Gen. Yehoshofat Harkabi, now professor of International Relations and Middle East Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The second is Jewish History and Jewish Religion, by Dr. Israel Shahak, former professor of organic chemistry at the same Hebrew University. Dr. Harkabi states the following: 1. “The Jews, as the chosen people, are superior in their essence to all other human beings. Their divine election is a

fact, an absolute fact. The difference between Jews and nonJews is thus part of the very nature of things. [God] separated between the profane and the holy, between the light and the darkness, between Israel and the nations.” (163-64) 2. “Judaism has been radicalized in two ways: politically, in supporting extreme nationalism and annexation of the West Bank; socially, in fostering hostility to gentiles in general and Arabs in particular. We find ourselves in a grave predicament. True, expressions of hostility and discriminatory enactments existed earlier, but until now they were moot. Since 1967, they are no longer so, and the possibility has been breathed into them by the demand that such laws should be applied here and now. Thus, they have been actualized and made plausible. We can no longer shrug our shoulders at the hostile material on the pretext that it is a very minor as well as extinct part of the Judaic tradition.” (165) 3. “We are commanded to inherit the land that God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and must not leave it in the hands of any other nation. . . . We must not leave the land in the hands of the (seven Canaanite nations) or any other people in any generation. . . . Rabbi Zvi Yehudah Kook, the mentor of Gush Emunim, commented as follows: ‘These are explicit words of halakha. . . . The main thrust of the com-

THE BARNES REVIEW

7

mandment is conquest by the state, Jewish national rule in this holy territory.’ ” (144) 4. “According to halakha it is forbidden for a non-Jew to live in Jerusalem, and in accordance with the ruling by Maimonides it is forbidden to permit even a resident alien in Jerusalem. . . . Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg, winner of the 1976 Israel Prize (given for outstanding achievement), has said: ‘It is forbidden for gentiles to live in Jerusalem. I, for example, favor upholding the halakhic prohibition on a gentile’s living in Jerusalem. If we would uphold this halakha as we should, we would have to expel all non-Jews from Jerusalem and purify it absolutely.’ ” (149) 5. “Rabbi Hess explains the commandment to blot out the memory of Amalek and says that there is no mercy in this commandment: the commandment is to kill and destroy even children and infants. Amalek is whoever declares war against the people of God. . . . Hess implies that those who have a quarrel with the Jews instantly become Amalek and ought to be destroyed, children and all. Amalek is identified with the Arabs. . . . Amalek is not an ancient extinct tribe but a generic enemy that each generation may identify for itself. . . . “Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, in a collection of articles intended to justify the religious terrorist underground that emerged in Israel in the mid-1980s, explained that the killing of a nonJew is not considered murder: ‘It follows from Maimonides’ words that a Jew who killed a non-Jew was exempt from human judgment, and has not violated the prohibition on murder. As Maimonides writes in The Laws of Murderers: “A Jew who killed a resident alien is not sentenced to death by a court of law.” ’ ” (150) 6. “The fact that there were Jews who plotted to blow up the Dome of the Rock should be a source of grave concern. It cannot be assumed that those who were brought to trial were alone. Might a group opposed to eventual negotiations for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict plant a bomb in the mosques as a means to derail them? Given the psychosis prevalent in some circles in the country, the chance that something like this will happen is not negligible. “In this context we cannot dismiss the significance of the widely disseminated aerial photograph of the Old City in which the mosques were airbrushed out of existence and replaced by a model of the Second Temple. Such a picture is apt to inspire yearnings for its realization. Jewish extremists call the mosques an ‘abomination,’ and this designation itself seemingly requires action to remove them. “In a Yeshiva adjacent to the Temple Mount, garments for the temple priests are already being woven in anticipation that they will be needed in the near future. In other yeshivot, the detailed laws of animal sacrifices have become a popular topic of study, as if they will soon have contemporary relevance. Before, the messiah was a hope; now he has become a necessity.” (169) Dr. Israel Shahak, in his book Jewish History, Jewish Religion, states many quotations from Jewish sources similar to these racist quotations. Dr. Shahak states the following: 1. “In 1962, a part of the Maimonidean Code referred to

8

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

above, the so-called Book of Knowledge, which contains the most basic rules of Jewish faith and practice, was published in Jerusalem in bilingual edition, with the English translation facing the Hebrew text. The latter has been restored to its original purity, and the command to exterminate Jewish infidels appears in it in full: “ ‘It is a duty to exterminate them with one’s own hands.’ “In the English translation this is somewhat softened to: “ ‘It is a duty to take active measures [to] destroy them.’ “But then the Hebrew text goes on to specify the prime examples of ‘infidels’ who must be exterminated: ‘Such as Jesus of Nazareth and his pupils, and Tzadoq and Baitos and their pupils. May the name of the wicked rot.’ Not one word of this appears in the English text on the facing page (78a).” (2425) 2. “The second example comes from the United States, again from an English translation of a book by Maimonides. Apart from his work on the codification of the Talmud, he was also a philosopher, and his Guide to the Perplexed is justly considered to be the greatest work of Jewish religious philosophy and is widely read and used even today. Unfortunately, in addition to his attitude toward non-Jews generally and Christians in particular, Maimonides was also an anti-black racist. Toward the end of the Guide, in a crucial chapter (Book III, Chapter 51), he discusses how various sections of humanity can attain the supreme religious value, the true worship of God. Among those who are incapable of even approaching this are: ‘Some of the Turks [i.e., the Mongol race] and the nomads in the north, and blacks and nomads in the south, and those who resemble them in our climates. “ ‘And their nature is like the nature of mute animals, and according to my opinion they are not on the level of human beings, and their level among existing things is below that of a man and above that of a monkey, because they have the image and the resemblance of a man more than a monkey does.’ ” (24-25) 3. “A number of discrepant versions of Biblical borders of the land of Israel, which rabbinical authorities interpret as ideally belonging to the Jewish state, are in circulation. The most far-reaching among them include the following areas within these borders: in the south, all of Sinai and a part of northern Egypt up to the environs of Cairo; in the east, all of Jordan and a large chunk of Saudi Arabia, all of Kuwait and a part of Iraq south of the Euphrates in the north, all of Lebanon and all of Syria together with a huge part of Turkey (up to Lake Van); and in the west, Cyprus. An enormous body of research and learned discussion based on these borders embodied in atlases, books, articles and more popular forms of propaganda is being published in Israel, often with state subsidies, or other forms of support.” (9) 4. “According to the halakha, the duty to save the life of a fellow Jew is paramount. . . . As for gentiles, the basic Talmudic principle is that their lives must not be saved, although it is also forbidden to murder them outright. . . . Maimonides explains: ‘As for gentiles with whom we are not

at war . . . their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death. If, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written ‘neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow,’ but [a gentile] is not thy fellow.” (80) 5. “If a Jew finds property whose probable owner is Jewish, the finder is strictly enjoined to make a positive effort to return his find by advertising it publicly. In contrast, the Talmud and all the early rabbinical authorities not only allow a Jewish finder to appropriate an article lost by a gentile, but actually forbid him or her to return it.” (89) 6. “The Talmud and Talmudic literature reiterate the genocidal biblical exhortations with even greater vehemence. Influential rabbis, who have a considerable following among Israeli army officers, identify the Palestinians (or even all Arabs) with those ancient nations, so that commands like ‘thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth’ acquire a topical meaning. In fact, it is not uncommon for reserve soldiers called up to do a tour of duty in the Gaza Strip to be given an ‘educational lecture’ in which they are told that the Palestinians of Gaza are ‘like the Amalekites.’ “Biblical verses exhorting to genocide of the Midianites were solemnly quoted by an important Israeli rabbi in justification of the Qibbiya massacre, and this pronouncement has gained wide circulation in the Israeli army. There are many similar examples of bloodthirsty rabbinical pronouncements against the Palestinians, based on these laws.” (91-92)

Part 3 The American Zionists Railroaded the United States Into World War I American Neutrality It is pertinent to keep in mind that the neutrality of America in World War I became the most important issue in the 1916 presidential election. The Republican platform called for “a strict and honest neutrality in the European war.” The Democratic platform condemned the efforts of every organization “that has for its object the advancement of the interests of a foreign power.” This leaves no doubt that the continued neutrality of the United States was the deciding issue upon which Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in November, 1916. On January 22, 1917, President Wilson in his address to Congress asked: Is the present war a struggle for a just peace, or only for a new balance of power? If it be only for a new balance of power, who will guarantee the stable equilibrium of the new arrangements? There must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power, not organized rivalries, but an organized common peace. . . . A permanent peace must be based upon equality of nations and national rights. It must be a peace without victory.

Wilson concluded that address by stating:

We do not desire any hostile conflict with the imperial German government; we are the sincere friends of the German people and earnestly desire to remain at peace with the government that speaks for them.

In 1916 the Jews in the United States Were Pro-German James A. Malcolm, the intermediary in London between the Zionist leaders and the British war cabinet in the October, 1916, secret agreement, states in his account of his negotiations which resulted in that agreement (Origins of the Balfour Declaration: Dr. Weizmann’s Contribution. London, 1944) that he visited Sir Mark Sykes in late autumn of 1916 and that Sykes told Malcolm of the military deadlock in France, the growing menace of the submarine warfare, the unsatisfactory situation which was developing in Russia and the generally bleak outlook: The cabinet was looking anxiously for the U.S. intervention. I asked him what progress was being made in that direction. He shook his head glumly, “precious little.” He had thought of enlisting the substantial Jewish influence in America but had been unable to do so. Reports from America revealed a pro-German tendency among the wealthy Jewish bankers and bond issuing houses, nearly all of German origin, and among Jewish journalists who took their cue from them. He was sorely disappointed and puzzled that two missions that had been sent from France and Italy had completely failed to have any effect.

The Secret British-Zionist Deal of 1916 Mr. Malcolm reports in this account that he told Sykes: “You can win the sympathy of Jews everywhere, in one way only, and that is by offering to try to secure Palestine for them.” Malcolm further states in this account that Sykes told him that: Lord Milner was interested to learn of the Jewish nationalist movement but could not see any possibilities of promising Palestine to the Jews. I replied that it seemed to me the only way to achieve the desired result and mentioned that one of Wilson’s most intimate friends, for whose humanitarian views he had the greatest respect, was Justice Brandeis, of the Supreme Court, who was a convinced Zionist.

Malcolm then describes the protracted negotiations between the Zionists and the British war cabinet and concludes by saying: The talks resulted in a general understanding which I called a “gentlemen’s agreement,” that the Zionists should work for active Jewish sympathy and support for the Allied cause, especially in America, so as to bring about pro-Allied tendency in that country and that the British Cabinet would help the Jews to gain Palestine in return for this.

The secret 1916 London agreement between the World Zionist Organization and the British war cabinet supplied the Zionists in America with their “green light” to then “go to work” on Wilson himself personally through their contacts,

THE BARNES REVIEW

9

and to take all necessary steps to change the sentiment for neutrality in America into violent anti-German feeling. Reports appeared in the press of alleged German atrocities, exaggerated Zionist inventions to inflame public opinion in America against Germany. The Right Honorable Francis Neilson, M.P., a prominent member of the British House of Commons until his resignation in 1915, in his classic book about World War I, The Makers of War, states with authority: In America, Woodrow Wilson, desperate to find a pretext to enter the war, found it at last in a story of the “sinking” of the Sussex in mid-channel. Someone had invented a yarn that American lives had been lost. With this excuse he went to Congress for a declaration of war. Afterward, the Navy found that the Sussex had not been sunk, and that no American lives were lost.

Wilson, in his history-making address to Congress on April 2, 1917, four days before America declared war on Germany, recommended to the Congress: . . . that Congress declare the recent course of the imperial German government to be in fact nothing less than war against the government and the people of America; that it formally accept the status of a belligerent which has been thrust upon it and that it take steps not only to put the country in a more thorough state of defense, but also to exert all its power and employ all its resources to bring the government of the German empire to terms to end the war.

Following the reading of Wilson’s history-making message to the Congress, resolutions were introduced in both houses of Congress, declaring a state of war had been thrust upon the United States by Germany, and on April 6, 1917, America declared war on Germany. Great Britain and France thereupon promptly dispatched missions to Washington requesting “money, food, raw materials and men.” France also pleaded for U.S. troops to be sent as quickly as possible, because the French people “had suffered cruelly and were war weary and despondent.” France’s Marshal Joffre declared at that time: “The sight of American troops, no matter how few, as tangible evidence of America’s intentions, would have a tonic effect upon French morale.” Before the end of 1917, 2 million U.S. troops were in training in America and France, and war industries in America were stepped up to supply increased requirements. This great Zionist success, Zionist influence on Wilson, and exerting Zionist pressure to railroad the United States into World War I, is most accurately described by Malcolm in The New Judaea, the official publication of the World Zionist Organization in London. In the October-November, 1944, issue Malcolm states: The “gentlemen’s agreement” between the Zionist leaders and the war cabinet, which I was entrusted to bring about, was the basis of cooperation, and within a few months, despite numerous setbacks due to war conditions, solid progress was achieved. The support of Wilson was, of course, the main achievement, because America’s help was vitally needed by the Allies. It was only in the following

10

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

April that America came into the war.

Samuel Landman of London, from 1917 to 1922 secretary of the World Zionist Organization, discloses in an official pamphlet Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine, published by the New Zionist Press, London, 1936, how the World Zionist Organization in 1916 entered into a secret agreement with the British war cabinet, by the terms of which Britain promised Palestine to the Zionists as payment for using Zionist pressure in the United States to railroad America into World War I as Britain’s ally. Landman states on page 4 that: . . . the only way . . . to induce the American president to come into the War was to secure the cooperation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favor of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis.

In connection with U.S. participation in World War I, The World Almanac states that 4,734,991 American citizens were mobilized in World War I; 116,516 Americans were killed in action, and 204,002 were injured or maimed for life. The American people were never told the painful truth that the great sacrifices in life and money suffered by America in World War I were not to protect American interests but were made solely to enable Zionists throughout the world to acquire Palestine for their so-called “Jewish Commonwealth.” The treasonable role played by Zionists in America in railroading this country into World War I has so far been kept a secret from the nation by Zionist censorship.

Jews Caused ‘Anti-Semitism’ in Germany Samuel Landman wrote in his Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine, page 6: The fact that it was Jewish help that brought the United States into the war on the side of the Allies has rankled ever since in German—especially Nazi—minds, and has contributed in no small measure to the prominence which antiSemitism occupies in the Nazi program.

Dr. Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, in a significant article on the psychology of German anti-Semitism appearing in the March 21, 1932, issue of Opinion: A Journal of Jewish Life and Letters (New York), wrote inter alia: They [the Jews] were held responsible for the defeat as well as for every disadvantage that had ensued from the debacle. . . . This also accounts more than any of the other reasons for the depth of hatred, the passionate rage, and the brutality of Hitlerism.

The Jewish Daily Bulletin (New York) on October 30, 1934, carried the following Jewish Telegraphic Agency dispatch from Berlin on page 3: The New Germany persists toward the complete extermination of the Jew because it was Jews who instigated America to enter the World War, accomplishing the defeat of Germany, and who later caused the inflation in Germany, Herr [Richard] Kunze, a leading Nazi parliament figure,

declared at a mass meeting in Magdeburg yesterday.

David Lloyd George, British prime minister from 1916 to 1922, wrote in his The Truth about the Peace Treaties (London, 1938), volume 2, page 1,140: “The Jews in Germany are suffering today for the fidelity with which their brethren in Russia and in America discharged their obligations under the Zionist pledge to the Allies.” The American people were never told why they were railroaded into World War I. On March 4, 1919, Rep. Julius Kahn submitted to Wilson a memorandum signed by 300 top American Jewish leaders from all over America, which was published in The New York Times on March 5, 1919. The Jewish leaders stated in their memorandum inter alia, the following: a. “American Zionists represent, according to the most recent statistics available, only a small proportion of the Jews living in this country, about 150,000 out of 3,500,000. (American Jewish Year Book, 1918, Philadelphia).” And: b. “As to the future of Palestine, it is our fervent hope that what was once a ‘promised land’ for the Jews may become a ‘land of promise’ for all races and creeds, safeguarded by the League of Nations which, it is expected, will be one of the fruits of the Peace Conference to whose deliberations the world now looks forward so anxiously and so full of hope. We ask that Palestine be constituted as a free and independent state, to be governed under a democratic form of government recognizing no distinctions of creed or race or ethnic descent, and with adequate power to protect the country against oppression of any kind. We do not wish to see Palestine, either now or at any time in the future, organized as a Jewish state.”

Part 4 Zionist Leaders Railroaded the United States into World War II

the bright sun of civilization will again shine upon Germany, and the world will be a safer place in which to dwell. . . . What we are proposing and have already gone far toward doing, is to prosecute a purely defensive economic boycott that will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends. They have flaunted and persisted in flaunting and defying world opinion. We proposed to and are organizing world opinion to express itself in the only way Germany can be made to understand.

Zionist leaders in America, in Britain and throughout the world, not only waged their “holy war” against Germany and the Germans in the economic field, but they initiated their notorious world-wide propaganda campaign to block any avenue of understanding, or settlements of disputes, between Germany, Britain and France. The pressure which Zio nists were exerting upon Britain and France to wage war against Germany was quite apparent everywhere and could not be mistaken. The following are only a few of the many available quotations which indicate the great pressure exerted by Zionist leaders throughout the world for unleashing World War II against Germany. The late James Forrestal, secretary of defense in the Truman administration, wrote in his book The Forrestal Diaries (New York, 1951), pages 121-22: December 27, 1945—Played golf today with Joe Kennedy [Joseph P. Kennedy, who was Roosevelt’s ambassador to Britain in the years immediately before the war]. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s [William C. Bullitt, then ambassador to France] urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight, Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into war.

The Jews of the world, in a worldwide conference called in Amsterdam in July, 1933, declared a “holy war” against Germany. Samuel Untermyer, president of the World Jewish Economic Federation which met in Amsterdam, upon his return to America, delivered the historic declaration of a “holy war” against Germany in a nation-wide radio broadcast over the Columbia Broadcasting System. The full text of that declaration was published in The New York Times on August 7, 1933, in which Mr. Untermyer, among many other things, said the following:

The Sunday Chronicle of London, another leading British newspaper, on January 2, 1938, under the headline “500,000,000 POUND FIGHTING FUND FOR THE JEWS,” published an article in which the following appeared:

I deeply appreciate your enthusiastic greeting on my arrival today, which I quite understand is addressed not to me personally but to the holy war in the cause of humanity in which we are embarked. Jews and non-Jews alike, for we are equally concerned that the work of centuries shall not be undone, and that civilization shall not be allowed to die. It is a war that must be waged unremittingly until the black clouds of bigotry, race hatred and fanaticism that have descended upon what was once Germany, but is now medieval Hitlerland, have been dispersed. If we will but enlist to a man and persist in our purpose,

The Jew is facing one of the biggest crises in his troubled history. In Poland, Rumania, Germany, Austria, his back is to the wall. But now he is going to hit back hard. This week the leaders of International Jewry will meet in a village near Geneva to devise a counteroffensive. Now a united front composed of all sections of Jewish parties is to be formed. It will show the anti-Semitic governments of Europe that the Jew insists on fair play. The great International Jewish financiers are to contribute approximately 500 million pounds sterling [$2.5 billion]. This sum will be used to fight the persecuting states. The battle will be

THE BARNES REVIEW

11

fought on the world’s stock exchanges. Since the majority of the anti-Semitic states are burdened with heavy international debts, they will find their very existence threatened. A boycott throughout Europe of their export products by way of the retailer may undermine the present uncertain economic stability of several of the anti-Semitic countries.

The eminent Zionist Rabbi Maurice L. Perlzweig, head of the British Section of the World Jewish Congress, stated to a Canadian audience as reported by The Toronto Evening Telegram of February 26, 1940, “The World Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years.” Geoffrey Le Mesurier Mander, an important member of the House of Commons, wrote in The Jewish Standard (London) for April 17, 1941, page 3, “The cause of the Jews throughout the world is the cause for which Great Britain and her Allies are fighting. . . . ” In an editorial in the issue of July 24, 1942, of The American Hebrew (New York), a Zionist weekly, we find the following: Whenever an American or a Filipino fell at Bataan or Corregidor or at any other of the now historic spots where MacArthur’s men put up their remarkable fight, their survivors could have said with truth: The real reason that boy went to his death was because Hitler’s anti-Semitic movement succeeded in Germany.

Ludwig Lewisohn, honorary secretary of the Zionist Organization of America, in an article written for the September, 1942 issue of The Jewish Mirror (New York), stated: The Jewish people is the symbol of the nature of this war. No one else. Nothing else. . . . On this central point, on this very heart and core of the whole matter the West is still recalcitrant. I know intelligent Jews who still today try to repress the character of this war by attempting to liken the attack on the Jewish people to other acts of war. . . . The National Socialists have one tremendous advantage over us. They repress nothing. They deny nothing. They know what war is about. . . . On March 2, 1942, Robert Ley, minister of labor in the Nazi government, declared in an address in Posen: “Germany fights on many fronts and has many enemies; but its chief enemy is world Jewry, and its most important front is the Jewish front.” Is that clear enough?. . . . Yes, the Jews are the chief enemies of National Socialism. . . . This is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end of the whole matter. Christendom repressed the persecution of the German Jews in 1933. Had it not done so there would have been no war. American boys would not be dying in all corners of the world today. A few divisions and a small army of occupation would have finished Hitler.

In their “Sermon of the Week” in the May 8, 1942, issue of The Jewish Chronicle (London) the following admission of Zionist antagonism toward Germany and the Germans, confirming their “holy war” as far back as 1933 appeared: “We [Jews] have been at war with him [Hitler] from the first day he gained power.” In the October 8, 1942, issue of The Chicago Jewish

12

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

Sentinel, Rabbi S. Felix Mendelsohn wrote: “The second world war is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism.” The Right Honorable Walter Elliott, M.P., speaking at Albert Hall in London at a demonstration against Nazi treatment of the Jews in Germany, stated that he: . . . considered that the atrocities of the Nazis were, more than any other single factor, the cause of Britain going to war. He well remembered how, many years before the war, Sir Austen Chamberlain drew attention to the atrocities against the Jews, and warned the world that with such a system, ordinary relations would be impossible.

At a meeting organized by the United Jewish Committee to Aid Soviet Russia, held in Grosvenor House, London, in November 1942, Beverly Nichols stated: When Hitler had said this was a Jewish war, he was saying something which was largely true, in that if it had not been for the pogroms and the constant persecution of the Jews, the world would not have been aroused to a consciousness of the essential evil that was Nazism.

Sen. Wayne Morse of Oregon delivered a speech on December 20, 1951, as reported in The National Jewish Post (Indianapolis) of December 28, 1951, in which he stated, “One of the major causes for our going to war against Hitler was the persecution of the Jews in Germany.”

Zionists Again Achieved Their Objectives By Unleashing World War II World Zionist leaders achieved their objectives by driving the world into World War II. The Zionists succeeded in crushing Nazi Germany, but the price the world was compelled to pay for their victory over Nazi Germany meant the loss of millions of lives, of men, women and children throughout the world. The big lie of the “6 million” Jews was exposed in an article by Hanson W. Baldwin in the issue of The New York Times of February 22, 1948. Mr. Baldwin stated that: [T]he American Jewish Committee and the Statistical Bureau of the Synagogues of America confirm that the world population of persons professing Judaism in 1939 [the year World War II started] was 15,682,259, and that in May 1948, the world Jewish population was between 15,600,000 and 18,700,000. Based on these figures, it appears that the alleged extermination of 6 million Jews is nothing but a myth.

The Jews of Europe suffered in World War II no more than other European nations which were subject to Nazi occupation.

Was Hitler a Jew? The Jewish Transcript of Seattle, Washington, in its issue of July 21, 1933, published an editorial under the title “Co-Religionist Hitler,” in which it stated: Jews can hardly be happy to have proof accumulating

that Adolf Hitler, arch-enemy of the Jewish people, and reincarnation of Torquemada, is one of our flesh and blood. There is something appalling in the thought that this man who has caused despair and destruction to countless thousands of Jews stems from the very people whom he is seeking to exterminate. . . . Whatever may be the outcome of this revelation of Hitler’s Jewish ancestry, there is cause for self-pity in the knowledge that out of the Jewish people there can spring so violent a repudiation of all that Jewish history has meant.

The American Council of Judaism, in its Special Interest Report of May-June 1997, published the following: Austrian historian Brigitte Hamann, in her new book, Hitler’s Vienna: The Learning Years of a Dictator, presents evidence of Hitler’s friendship with a number of Jews during his time in Vienna before World War I. She reports that at this time, when Hitler was between the ages of 17 and 24, most of his friends and business partners were Jews and he openly stated his sympathy “for this wise nation, which, unlike the Germans, knows how to stick together.” Between 1910 and 1913, Hitler lived in an asylum for homeless men, an institution sponsored in Vienna by wealthy Jews. His closest friends were the Jewish co-residents Josef Neumann, who helped him sell his paintings; Siegfried Loeffner, who supported young Adolf in a row with an anti-Semitic rival; and Simon Robinson, a war invalid who backed the poor Hitler financially. Hitler’s business partner was the art dealer Samuel Morgenstern. Prof. Hamann reports that with Neumann, Hitler would carry out nightly discussions about Moses, the Ten Commandments, and the philosophy of Zionism.

Zionist Leaders Financed & Glorified Hitler Zionists suppressed the fact that Zionist leaders financed Hitler and cooperated with Hitler before 1933. Pierre van Paasen stated in The Jewish Standard, published in Toronto, Canada, on July 7, 1933, “Jewish financiers pulled Adolf Hitler out of a ditch by financing the Nazi organization.” Meyer W. Weisgal, editor of The Jewish Standard, stated in the issue of July 21, 1933, page 432, “One of the strangest phenomena in the whole German situation is that of the so-called ‘Nationalist Jews.’ They are the Jewish followers of Adolf Hitler. This group publishes a paper which glorifies Hitler.” This fact was confirmed by David BenGurion in the Knesset, as reported in The Jerusalem Post of May 14, 1963. Mr. Ben-Gurion shouted at Menachem Begin and said: “I was not a partner of Herut’s when they praised, extolled and raised up the name of Hitler, set him up as a model for the conduct of a national movement, and included Hitler among the outstanding names of our era.”

An Alliance Between the Zionist Stern Gang & Nazi Germany On January 11, 1941, Avraham Stern proposed a formal military pact between the National Military Organization (NMO), of which Yitzhak Shamir, prime minister of Israel (1983-1984 and 1986-1992), was a prominent leader, and the Nazi Third Reich. This proposal became known as the Ankara document, having been discovered after the war in the files of the German Embassy in Turkey. It stated:

The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question; but this can only be made possible and complete through the settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine, and through the establishment of a Jewish state in its historical boundaries. . . . The NMO, which is well acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities toward Zionist activity inside Germany and toward Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that: 1. Common interests could exist between the establishment of a New Order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO. 2. Cooperation between the new Germany and renewed folkish-national Hebraium would be possible. [A]nd: 3. The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a National and totalitarian basis, and bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position in the Near East. Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition that the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany’s side.

Part 5 The Israeli Lobby Controls the U.S. Congress & the Administration at All Levels The Israeli lobby in the United States is an octopus of 50 Zionist organizations which takes orders from the Israeli government and its embassy in Washington. It is, in fact, an agency of the Israeli government. Its objective is to make, and keep, the U.S. administration and Congress subservient to the will of Israel. The Israeli lobby does not represent the majority of Jews of America. Ninety percent of the Jews of America are loyal American citizens and have nothing to do with Zionism nor with the Israeli lobby. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles told Henry Luce, owner of Time, Inc.: “I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy not approved by the Jews. But I am going to try to have one. We cannot have all our policies made in Jerusalem.” The Israeli lobby controls thousands of American newspapers and many radio and television stations, and, therefore, they were able to impress all Americans aspiring to be elected to a public office that they should work with the Israeli lobby, which will secure for them Jewish votes and financial contributions from Jews. This explains why 85 percent of members of Congress and many citizens who aspire to be elected president of the United States are forced to work with the Israeli lobby, and usually decide to visit Israel in order to obtain the blessing of the Israeli lobby. To demonstrate the power of the Israeli lobby, let us consider what happened to various presidents of the United States, from Harry S Truman to America’s current president, George W. Bush.

THE BARNES REVIEW

13

President Truman The Israeli lobby pressured President Truman to follow a policy favorable to Zionists. They used Clark Clifford and David Niles to convey Zionists’ wishes and pressure Truman. The American Zionist stated, “Truman accepted the Zionist line reluctantly and under pressure, at first, but having accepted it, he followed through honestly and firmly.”2 Truman wrote to Mrs. Roosevelt, “I feel very much that the Jews are like all underdogs when they are on top, they are just as intolerant and as cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath.”3

President Eisenhower President Eisenhower was the president who defied the Israeli lobby. “He resisted pressure from the Israeli lobby, and on three occasions forced Israel to abandon major policies, of which it was publicly and strongly committed.”4 “Sen. Fullbright sees little hope that Capitol Hill will effectively challenge the Israeli lobby: It’s suicide for politicians to oppose them. The only possibility would be someone like Eisenhower who already feels secure.”5

President Kennedy John F. Kennedy, while campaigning, met one night for dinner with a small group of wealthy and prominent Jews in New York. An episode of the evening troubled him deeply. Describing it to Bartlett as an “amazing experience,” he said one of those at the dinner party—he did not identify him by name—told him he knew his campaign was in financial difficulty and, speaking for the group, offered “to help and help significantly” if Kennedy as president “would allow them to set the course of Middle East policy over the next four years.” It was an astounding proposition. . . . Kennedy told Bartlett he reacted less as a presidential candidate than as a citizen. “He said he felt insulted.”6

President Lyndon B. Johnson President Johnson had many Jewish friends who made him more responsive to the demands of Israel and its lobby in America. President Johnson became subservient to the will of the Israeli lobby, and he covered up the facts concerning one of the most astonishing disasters in the history of the Navy, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.7 It is a fact that Lyndon Johnson was privy to the Israeli plan to launch the 1967 war against Jordan, Egypt and Syria, namely the SixDay War.

President Richard M. Nixon President Nixon won the election in 1968 without the help of the Israeli lobby. Nixon dispatched [Gov.] William Scranton to spread the diplomatic message of “evenhandedness” throughout the area, quickening pulses in Arab capitals and creating anxiety in Tel-Aviv.8 Nixon, Rogers, Richardson, Laird, Helms—most of the top officials—applauded [Assistant Secretary of State for Middle Eastern Affairs Joseph] Sisco’s presentation for

14

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

solving the Arab-Israeli disputes. “It is time,” one of them said, “that the United States stop acting as Israel’s attorney in the Middle East.” 9

On December 9, 1969, Secretary of State William Ro gers declared his plan for a Middle East comprehensive settlement and called for the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied Arab territories. Israel, through Henry Kissinger, sabotaged Rogers’ plan in every way during 1970 and 1971 and intensified its requests for American weapons, mainly Phantom jet fighter planes. Kissinger and the Israeli lobby reversed the “evenhandedness” of the Nixon administration and the efforts of Secretary Rogers for peace, and made Nixon a tool of the Israeli policy. During the 1973 war between Egypt, Syria and Israel, Kissinger and the Israeli lobby made America a party in the war with Israel. On October 24, 1973, the National Security Council met in the White House at 11 p.m. and declared a national military alert. Nixon was upstairs in his quarters but had authorized his secretary of state to take whatever action was necessary. Defense Secretary Schlesinger, CIA Chief William Colby, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Thomas Moorer, White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig and Brig. Gen. Brent Scowcroft concurred in the Kissinger decision, which was relayed to Nixon. U.S. ground, sea and air forces, conventional as well as nuclear, were placed on military alert.10

President Gerald R. Ford Rep. Gerald Ford was one of the staunchest supporters of Israel. He helped persuade Johnson to sell Israel the first 50 Phantom jets. For 20 years he helped the Israeli lobby in Congress. “He endeavored for 20 years to turn Congress into an Israeli legislative body.”11 While president, he tried with Kissinger to mediate negotiations between Egypt and Israel, but the Israeli lobby and Israel sabotaged his efforts. “The Israelis kept stalling,” Ford wrote later. “Their tactics frustrated the Egyptians and made me mad as hell.”12 In spite of President Ford’s submissions to the threats and the will of the Israeli lobby, Jews betrayed him in the elections, and he lost to Jimmy Carter.

President Jimmy Carter In his first press conference as president, Carter reaffirmed his commitment to the existence and security of Israel, but he also stated, “There has to be a homeland provided for the Palestinian refugees, who have suffered for so many years.” Carter made a Middle East general settlement plan consisting of several points: Palestinian recognition of Israel; Israel accepts a Palestinian state or homeland; Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries with security lines beyond its legal frontiers; and normalization of relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Prime Minister Begin declared that Israel will never withdraw from “Judea and Samaria,” as

Among the U.S. presidents who were controlled by the political Zionists were (above, left to right): Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Bill Clinton. At first, American patriots were hopeful that the current president, George W. Bush (son of George Bush), would turn out to be at least a little less pro-Zionist than Clinton. But recent events have revealed “W” to be a cat’s-paw for Ariel Sharon and the Mideast ministate of Israel.

these are part of “the land of Israel.” Carter’s administration issued a statement on June 27, 1977, stating, “In return for Arab agreement for peace with Israel, Prime Minister Begin must agree to a withdrawal from occupied lands on all fronts and to the formation of a Palestinian homeland.”13 Carter was able to make the peace agreement at Camp David between Israel and Egypt. He was very friendly, but the Israeli lobby betrayed Carter and worked to elect Ronald Reagan.

President Ronald Reagan During the presidential campaign in 1981, Ronald Reagan was advocating that Israel is a strategic ally of America. After he won the elections, he did whatever Israel wanted. However, Reagan annoyed the Israeli lobby when he decided to sell AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia. He requested aid from [Thomas] Dine, [quondam editor and executive director] of AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee], to obtain for him votes of some senators to have a majority to sell the planes to Saudi Arabia. Reagan in 1982 presented a plan for a settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. The government of Israel instructed the Israeli lobby to frustrate the Reagan plan. Neither Reagan nor his secretary of state, George Schultz, pursued the peace plan seriously, and the proposal for the peace negotiations was shelved.

President George H.W. Bush President George Bush had always been, during his political career, favorable to Israel, cooperating with the Israeli lobby, giving aid to Israel, and continuing the Reagan policy of close cooperation with Israel. Operation Desert Storm against Saddam Hussein was made to a great extent at the urging of the Israeli lobby and its activists in America in order to destroy the military power of Iraq and remove such a threat to Israel. After the Gulf War, President George Bush and Secretary of State James Baker decided that it was time to make peace in the Middle East by settling the Arab-Israeli dispute. Baker was able to convene the Madrid peace conference.

The Israeli government, after the Madrid conference, gave orders to the Israeli lobby to wage a campaign of defamation against Bush and Baker. Some Israeli cabinet members called Bush and Baker “anti-Semites.” The Israeli lobby urged the Jews to give their votes and campaign contributions to Bill Clinton and not to Bush, and that was the reason why Clinton won the election.

President William Jefferson Clinton Bill Clinton won the presidency by assistance of the Israeli lobby. During his eight years of presidency, he became a tool of the Israeli lobby. He helped Israel militarily and financially more than any other president. He did the following: 1. He signed agreements to make Israel a strategic ally of America and for cooperation between America and Israel in the manufacture of strategic weapons. 2. He gave Israel all the jet planes (F-15s and F-16s) which were requested by Israel. 3. He stored in Israel military equipment and ammunitions with the value of $500 million. This equipment may be used by America and by Israel whenever it is needed. 4. He declared many times that the security of Israel is the responsibility of America. 5. He and Secretary of Defense William Cohen declared many times that America shall keep Israel stronger militarily than all the Arab states combined. 6. He employed Zionist agents, such as Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross, as intermediaries between the Palestinians and Israel. 7. During negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel, he obtained Israeli proposals and submitted them to the Palestinians as if they were American proposals. He did this more often and especially in the famous Camp David negotiations. 8. During his presidency, Congress adopted more than seven resolutions favoring Israel against the Palestinians.

President George W. Bush President George W. Bush did not know much about the Middle East problem. He was influenced by the Christian

THE BARNES REVIEW

15

What Are World Historians Saying About Zionism?

conservatives who are working with the Israeli lobby and advised by Condoleezza Rice, whom he made his national security advisor. Ms. Rice visited Israel twice, where she was indoctrinated in Zionist philosophy. George W. Bush made a declaration that he intends to transfer the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This statement was repeated by Secretary of State Colin Powell before Congress. When the Arab states protested, Powell stated that America had not decided yet when it would move its embassy to Jerusalem. In the early months of his presidency, George W. Bush invited the war criminal Ariel Sharon to the White House. Sharon carried his propaganda against Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians to the White House and Congress. Both President George W. Bush and his secretary of state kept declaring that Arafat should stop violence. They never stated that Israel, which occupied the West Bank and Gaza and rules the Palestinians under barbaric conditions, should withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and liberate the Palestinians. Bush and his administration are in favor of Israel and against the Palestinians. They are unwilling to exert any pressure against Israel to stop building settlements or taking barbaric measures in dividing the Palestinian areas into cantons, surrounding the towns and villages and disturbing the lives of the Palestinians.

Conclusion

Find Out in the Special Report:

Free Speech: Uncensored in Russia From the Staff of THE BARNES REVIEW It’s a four-page, tabloid-sized colorful synopsis of the recent International Conference on Global Problems of World History in Moscow you can have to read or hand out to likeminded truth-seekers. Let them know about the efforts of those Revisionist historians who are fighting censorship— and in many cases imprisonment—on a global scale to bring you real history and the truth about our past—much to the chagrin of the establishment’s “court historians.” One copy is $2. Six copies are $4. Forty or more copies are just 30¢ each. No charge for shipping & handling. Send payment with request to TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003. Shipping & handling included. You may also call 1-877-773-9077 toll free and charge your purchase to Visa or MasterCard.

16

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

As stated above, the Israeli lobby controls Congress and defies the presidents of the United States. It works for defeating any congressman or senator who is on its blacklist. The Israeli lobby has made America an occupied nation. It is the duty and responsibility of all American nationalists to work to liberate America from the Israeli lobby. ❖ FOOTNOTES: 1 Palestine has “observer status” in the United Nations.—Ed. 2 The American Zionist, February 5, 1953. 3 Margaret Truman, Harry S. Truman, New York, Morrow, 1978, 384-85, Alfred Lilienthal, 95. 4 Paul Findley, 117. 5 Ibid., 96. 6 Ibid., 114. 7 Ibid., 121. 8 Kalb v. Kalb: Kissinger, Little Brown, 1974, 187. 9 Ibid., 187. 10 Alfred M. Lilienthal: The Zionist Connection, 619-20. 11 Ibid., 632. 12 Richard Curtis, NGO Symposium on the question of Palestine on June 25, 1992, 10. 13 The New York Times, June 28, 1977.

Issa Nakleh is a Palestinian Christian who was born in Beit Sahour. He is a graduate of London University with an LL.B. degree and is a barrister-at-law, member of the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn, London, member of the Palestine Bar, former minister plenipotentiary, and is at present legal adviser for UN delegations.

The Ethnic Cleansing that Claimed 20 Million German Lives BY MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN

Secret documents recently released by the British Records Office at Kew in London reveal the stark horror of ritualistic executions of German POWs carried out by British, American and Jewish torturers—assisted, incredibly, by certified doctors. Here is a story that will shock you.

Germany Honored Her Foes The stark contrast between the Axis and Allied treatment of prisoners of war is only now being revealed. Typ ically, in September 1939, after the speedy success of the German-Polish campaign, captured Polish generals and officers, as well as those of other ranks, were treated according to convention and even chivalrously. There are no records of their being abused or maltreated by their German captors.1 Acclaimed historians such as A.J.P. Taylor, as far as permitted, resisted political interference in the accurate recording of events. The late professor conceded that the German attack on Poland was in response to British-backed Polish aggression to which Czechoslovakia was already a victim. Following the Polish occupation of Czechoslovakia, Germany, too, suffered repeated Polish attacks on its borders and the occupation of its territory. Matters were finally brought to a head by Polish Foreign Minister Beck’s inflexibility over the Danzig question as well as daily revelations of murderous atrocities committed against German nationals in Polish occupied territories.

to imagine a more conciliatory and generous act of placation being placed before the French people. During the occupation, members of the former French government were left in peace and were never molested by the German authorities. An honorable peace agreement had been signed with the lawful government of France at the beautiful spa town of Vichy. Throughout occupied France, life went on as normal. William L. Shirer, the Jewish journalist and author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, is notorious for putting a Jewish spin on the Third Reich. He accepted that, “The Parisians actually believed the Germans would rape the women and do worse to the men. . . . [T]he ones who stayed are all the more amazed at the very correct behavior of the troops.”2 Members of the German armed forces undeniably be haved in a correct and courteous manner towards the French populace. Any violations of this code were severely punished by court-martial.

British Fake Victory Photos Hitler Pays His Respects Having secured German borders, Adolf Hitler paid a personal visit to the tomb of Marshall Pilsudski, the re nowned Polish President. Bareheaded and with military cap in hand, he paid silent respect for several minutes. In 1940, after the fall of France, the German leader made a similar chivalrous gesture when visiting the tomb of his predecessor Napoleon Bonaparte. As a remarkable further gesture of reconciliation, Adolf Hitler ordered that the remains of Napoleon’s son, the illfated Napoleon II, be removed from a burial chamber in Vienna and reinterred at Les Invalides in Paris. It is difficult

Due to the absence of suitable propaganda material, the British government was reduced to faking photographs to hoodwink the trusting British public. Prof. David Dilks, giving a lecture at Leeds University, disclosed “that the British version of the famous film in which Hitler skips for joy at the defeat of France was doctored by us (the British) for propaganda purposes.” He also revealed that “Hitler’s tread that day was in fact remarkably sober.” Those attending this lecture included Lord Boyle, former financial secretary to the Treasury and Mrs. Stephen Lloyd, daughter of former Prime Minister Chamberlain.3 Good relations continued until the Soviet Union’s entry

THE BARNES REVIEW

17

into the war in 1941. It was then that the French Communist Party, in cahoots with the French renegade, Gen. Charles de Gaulle, who with Winston Churchill, took the war to the German occupiers by planning acts of terrorism: sabotage, assassination and murder. From that point on, members of Britain’s special forces were parachuted in or dropped off along France’s extensive coastline. Once ashore, atrocities were committed against German troops and their civilian administrators. Evidence was then planted to suggest local rebellious guilt. The purpose was to goad the Germans into reprisals that would then ignite the inconveniently complacent population. The Germans, assisted by the French authorities, did resort to vigorous counter measures.

Violette Szabo Was Never Tortured One such agent for the Allies was the Anglo-French woman, Violette Szabo. Recruited as an agent, she made several drops into occupied France and with others brought about considerable destruction and loss of life to both civilians and to French and German armed forces personnel. Szabo was twice captured and twice she escaped. On a third occasion, holed up with others, she killed several German soldiers before being captured. She was shot—strictly in accordance with convention—in the winter of 1944-1945. Claims that the Gestapo routinely tortured captives are so wide of the mark that incidences of maltreatment had to be created. Adept at turning defeat into victory, Szabo was portrayed as a victim of Nazi brutality to swing public opinion. In fact, this deadly female agent was never tortured as has been alleged. The most infamous of these fraudulent torture claims related to Szabo’s capture. These fantasies were later repeated in film (Carve Her Name With Pride), books and of course even today on various web sites honoring her. Her fellow captives Captain Peuleve and Wing Commander Yeo-Thomas G.C., both of whom were interrogated and imprisoned with Szabo, stated unequivocally that Szabo was never ever maltreated by the Germans. The torture claims made by her researcher Mr. Minney had caused Capt. Peuleve much embarrassment. He had wrongly and without his knowledge been named as the sole source of evidence for the torture allegations in the posthumous George Cross citation awarded to Szabo.4

From this point on, the military war against Germany turned into the world’s first war of racial genocide, a malignant war that had one purpose—to totally destroy Germany as a nation and to decimate beyond recovery the German people. Their nation had been handed a death sentence and the consequences would cost millions of lives. It was a war in which Axis soldiers not taken alive might consider themselves fortunate. Many of those captured or disadvantaged would be routinely slaughtered; others were enslaved, deported, worked to death or subjected to mortal deprivation. Simultaneously, the Allies prepared for an unprecedented air war that would incinerate Germany’s civilian population in their home towns and cities. Virtually all Christian Germany’s antagonists were of non-European stock. American President Franklin D. Roosevelt was of Dutch-Jewish ancestry. He surrounded himself with the American establishment’s most powerful Jewish figures, many of whom were prominent in the underworld. Churchill, though not Jewish, was the offspring of an American “society family” and was proud of his Iroquois Red Indian blood. He detested and feared Europe and felt belittled by its culture. He is also on record as saying: “I am a Zionist.” One of his first acts upon seizing power (Churchill was unelected) was to halt all intelligence gathering on Soviet suspects, which led to the wholesale infiltration of MI5 and MI6. U.S. Commander-in-Chief Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who took personal responsibility for ensuring the destruction of the German people, was also of Jewish descent. The eminent anthropologist Arnold Leece described as “sheer nauseating nonsense” his message of goodwill to the sinister Jewish lobby group B’nai B’rith. In it Eisenhower issued this message: “Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, is significant to every American for, in the deepest spiritual sense, we are all the seed of Abraham and Isaac.”5 “Our primary purpose,” the increasingly notorious Eisenhower later told war journalist J. Kingsley Smith, “is the destruction of as many Germans as possible. I expect to destroy every German west of the Rhine and within that area in which we are attacking.”6 As early as June, 1938, the American Hebrew was boasting that they had Jews in the foremost positions of influence in Britain, America and France, and that these “three sons of Israel” will be “sending the Nazi dictator to hell.”

World’s First Full-Scale Race War Through the early period of the war, often referred to as “the bore war,” an unspoken understanding and shared chivalry existed between the British and German air forces —until May 1940. Then Churchill, by cajolery and trickery, succeeded in ousting influential government ministers who regarded him as a warmonger and favored honorable peace negotiations with Germany. As a consequence, British attitudes deteriorated as the “phony war” rapidly turned into the total war of attrition which Churchill had long plotted. America’s President Roosevelt had, by this time, assured him of the full material support of the United States.

18

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

Blood-Soaked Dictators Eisenhower’s cohort Josef Stalin, the blood-soaked Soviet dictator whose racial origins are far from European, also surrounded himself with Jews, including his father-in-law. Yiddish was the language used habitually by his family. Against this formidable international array holding stupendous world power stood a revitalized Christian and financially independent Germany with its four Christian European Axis partners: Benito Mussolini’s Italy, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. It is not generally appreciated that over half of the Waffen SS personnel were of other than

German nationality. Roosevelt at this time was about to plunge the unwilling and deceived American people into war with Japan and, soon afterwards, Germany. Despite America’s so-called neutrality, its warships had already been given the green light to sink German ships and betray German shipping movements to Britain’s armed forces. Meanwhile, Britain, again in defiance of international law and unbeknownst to the British public, initiated the cold-blooded, deliberate bombing of civilian targets in Germany. This understandably provoked retaliatory German raids on Britain’s cities. The ruse gave the British warlords two advantages; it weakened Germany’s defensive capabilities (Russia was already mobilizing to attack Germany) and brought about a total war psychosis in the beleaguered English population. The goaded Luftwaffe’s retaliation, dressed up as unprovoked, ended public reluctance for Churchill’s war against Hitler’s Germany. The ultimate fate of Britain and Europe, indeed the world, was about to be sealed.

already executed virtually all of his own Red Army general staff in 1937 so the casual liquidation of tens of thousands of German officers posed no moral or logistical problem for him. Churchill balked at the proposal, but not because he was opposed to the scale of the unfolding atrocities, for he had already covered up the Soviet Union’s wholesale slaughter of 14,500 Polish army officers at Katyn Forest and elsewhere. By this time, the British war leader had turned a blind eye to the deportation and partial liquidation of 1.7 million Poles and many others who had fallen under the Soviet jackboot. Nor was his reluctance due to the fact that the proposed atrocity was a gross violation of international law. He demurred simply because even the British people, despite years of poisonous anti-German propaganda, would be repelled at being dragooned into assisting the Soviet Union’s genocidal killing machine. U.S. Adm. Daniel Leahy was angry: “I felt sorry for the German people. We were planning—and we had the force to carry out our plans—to obliterate a once mighty nation.”

Axis Partners Heavily Outnumbered

Mass Killings Without Trial

As the war neared its conclusion in 1944, the Central Europe Axis partners fought against overwhelming odds: to the east, the hordes of the colossal Soviet Empire rushed to Europe’s gates, to the west, the mighty British empire. Both were aided and abetted by the gargantuan might of the United States of America with its unlimited industrial and manpower resources. At the forefront of each of these em pires, the ubiquitous Jew was wallowing in Christian fratricide. Little wonder that the American-born hapless William Joyce, refugee broadcaster for the Reichsrundfunk Foreign Service, mockingly described the Jewish national anthem as Onward Christian Soldiers. The principal instigators of the near destruction of western civilization relished their moment. Churchill, often drunk, attended conferences at Tehran and Yalta to conspire in the disemboweling, dismemberment and looting of Central Europe and the removal once and for all of Germany as a trade competitor. Attending these conferences were the world’s most evil men including Stalin and, of course, Franklin D. Roosevelt and his henchmen. Before these malevolent conspirators representing the capitalist and communist façade of world Jewry, all of prostrated Europe lay at their mercy. Sadly, there was to be no mercy and no compassion.

Churchill favored instead the immediate mass shooting, without trial, of the 100 most influential leaders of the German nation. Pretend trials would be arranged for the rest so that Stalin would get what he wanted and the British warlord would keep his bogus respectability. The European-wide postwar killing machines were already being planned and set up. These included “military” tribunals and mock judicial trials later to be damned as kangaroo courts by thousands of jurists, ecclesiastics, military leaders, politicians, diplomats and writers throughout the world. These courts were given a judicial veneer to add spurious legitimacy to the wholesale slaughter of the defeated na tion’s military personnel. They were no more based in real life than is a comic opera, but the people in their ignorance would not know better. The result was that Stalin got his 50,000 corpses—and much more beside, whilst Churchill was able to distance himself from implication in this Soviet-style mass murder without trial.

No Mercy for Central Europe Never in the history of mankind have the populations of the Northern Hemisphere’s nation-states had their fate decided by so few. Tragically, among those manic few were men who already held humanity’s chilling record for race genocide—and the worst was yet to come. In 1943 at the Tehran Conference, Stalin, with coldblooded effrontery, among other diabolical schemes, proposed that following the Allied victory 50,000 German officers were to be randomly selected and shot. The Soviet dictator had

The German People Faced Genocide The number of captive German soldiers, National Socialist and civilian functionaries summarily killed or tortured to death from the war’s end through the 1950s runs into tens of thousands. One of the biggest mass slaughter machines ever created ensured the liquidation of 20 percent of the people of the defeated German nation, but even then, there was capacity and desire to increase this dreadful quota. In 1940, Henry Morgenthau, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, and Robert Vansittart, the U.S. London-based diplomatic advisor, along with other prominent Jews, de manded the genocide of the German people outright. Theodore Nathan Kaufman, another of America’s most influential Jews, also insisted upon the end of the German people’s existence. He demanded the forced sterilization of all people of German stock and demanded that the German

THE BARNES REVIEW

19

nation be divided between the conquerors. He cold-heartedly calculated a period of two generations to achieve this aim. Much of these plans was in fact carried out. Germany’s population was decimated and one third of its historical lands are to this day occupied by rogue satellite states, some of which have no historical or ethnic authenticity. The Soviet Union, within months of the war’s end, kidnapped an estimated 5 million people, mostly, but not exclusively, of German stock. Many were members of the German armed forces, but the merciless dragnet pulled in hundreds of thousands of uprooted civilians from children to aged folk, their destination—the notorious Gulag Archipelago chain of slave camps through the Siberian hinterland. Few of these unfortunates survived. This was all done in the full knowledge of the Soviet dictator’s cohorts: Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and their henchmen. As many more were routinely slaughtered, often for the sheer amusement of the rapacious Red Army. “Since the end of the war about 3 million people, mostly women and children and over-aged men, have been killed in eastern Germany and southeastern Europe; about 15 million people have been deported or had to flee their homesteads and are on the road. About 25 percent of these people, over 3 million have perished. About 4 million men and women have been deported to Eastern Europe as slaves. It seems that the elimination of the German population of Eastern Europe—at least 15 million people—was planned in accordance with decisions made at Yalta. Churchill had said to Mikolakczyk when the latter protested during the negotiations to Moscow against forcing Poland to incorporate eastern Germany; “Don’t mind the five or more million Germans. Stalin will see to them. You will have no trouble with them; they will cease to exist.”7 The United States, France and Britain were directly and indirectly responsible for deaths far exceeding even these dreadful figures. The official figure of 3.5 million German war dead is completely inaccurate. Even before the war’s end, Churchill, who was unlikely to exaggerate such figures, stated: “I am not alarmed by the reduction of the population. Six million Germans have lost their lives in the war. We can expect that by the end of the war many more will be killed, and then there will be room for those expelled.”8 To Churchill’s figures can be added an estimated 13 million to 15 million German people who were liquidated by various means after the war’s end. Approximately 20 million Central Europeans, members of one of the most gifted Christian nations on Earth, had lost their lives by the early 1950s. All had perished at the hands of the victor nations who almost to a man took their instruction from those who were neither European by race nor Christian by faith. (The count of British dead including civilians is placed at 264,000. For every Briton who died, 80 Germans died.) With tens of millions of displaced people wandering aimlessly across Central Europe, it was left to the ravages of nature, principally typhoid, starvation and a destroyed infrastructure, to “cull” the surviving German population. All means of survival were blocked at the defeated country’s bor-

20

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

ders to assist nature in “taking its course.” Corpses littered the highways and byways, towns and cities of the German nation. What Stalin had brought to the Ukraine [TBR, Jan./Feb. 2002, pp. 40-41] he now brought to Central Europe, with the assistance of Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Guards Amuse Selves by Shooting Prisoners It is estimated that 750,000 German POWs and other civilian prisoners died from malnutrition, disease, and maltreatment in the vast holding camps left to the tender mercies of U.S. General Eisenhower. The respected Canadian journalist and writer, James Bacque, in his masterful account of the events, Other Losses [Available from TBR BOOK CLUB, Item #127, softcover, 288 pps., $20.95.—Ed.], chronicled this monumental tragedy.9 A summary of the book recounts how, “In the U.S. Army camps of Germany and France at the end of World War II, almost 4 million German soldiers were held prisoner outdoors, in unsheltered barbedwire enclosures, with little or no food or water, for months on end. At least 750,000 died of malnutrition and disease. Most were soldiers of the Wehrmacht who surrendered in May 1945, but scores of thousands were women, children, and old men. Most of these deaths were listed simply as “other losses.” In painstaking, wide-ranging research, James Bacque has interviewed hundreds of prisoners, guards and army officers and has amassed extensive evidence to reveal the shocking story of a massive crime. The tragic events recorded in this book are highly controversial, and the author’s accusations were for a time suppressed in the U.S. But in the face of skepticism and hostility, James Bacque has made a major historical discovery.

‘One of the Most Successful Cover-Ups in History’ A British national newspaper, the Independent on Sun day, described these events as “one of the most successful cover-ups in history.” This mass-calculated cruelty aimed at a people based on nothing other than their racial origin included casual murder on a horrifying scale. One ex-guard described how some of the other guards would amuse themselves by placing food outside the camp parameters, and then shoot dead those POWs who were sufficiently foolhardy to take their chances. Five million members of Germany’s armed forces had already been spirited away to the slave camps of the USSR. Millions more fetched up in camps across Europe, America and Canada. The French postwar army took charge of nearly 1 million prisoners from the Americans for use as slave labor euphemistically called “reparations.” Even Rome at its most decadent had stopped short of carnage and slavery on such a monstrous scale. Of these postwar prisoners such were the conditions they were held in that 250,000 of them died in the most distressing of circumstances. Britain laid claim to 460,000 German slaves who were kept until 1948 and who were only then released at the insistence of the International Red

Above: German POWs at American Camp Sinzig near Remagen, Germany, in spring 1945. As soon as Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945, the American military governor, General Eisenhower, sent out an “urgent courier” throughout the huge area that he commanded, making it a crime punishable by death for German civilians to feed prisoners. It was even a capital crime to gather food together in one place to take it to prisoners. Although the prisoners were getting only 800 calories per day, the Americans were destroying food outside the camp gate. Nazi “concentration camps” were in many respects were holiday resorts compared to the sub-human conditions of the Allies’ detainment camps.

Cross. Most were soldiers of the Wehrmacht who had laid down their arms in May 1945, but scores of thousands were civilians including women, elderly people, and even children.

The First Genocidal Race War Was Jewish World War II was undoubtedly the first war in which race was the overriding factor and purpose in killing rather than by unfortunate circumstance as with the Native North and South American and Australian aboriginal populations. Its victims, as in the Soviet-Jewish pogroms of the Russian “kulak” and peasant populations were overwhelmingly Christ ian; the perpetrators Jewish or Jewish front men. The indisputable evidence clearly suggests that the killing frenzy of America’s Jews was motivated by the desire to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, not for any crime they had committed but simply based on the grounds that they were of a different race than themselves. In Washington, D.C., as World War II came to its bitter end with the imposed unconditional surrender of Germany imminent, a bitter policy dispute arose between Henry Mor genthau and then Secretary of State Henry Stimson.

Morgenthau, by this time, proposed the execution (without trial) of all members of the German National Socialist Party. Such was the diabolical Jewish desire for the spilling of German Christian blood. Only when it was pointed out to him that there were 15 million NSDAP card-holding Germans was he forced to modify his demands. Stimson held his ground in favor of legally processing individual Germans — which was in itself without precedent and illegal—but he was on the losing side for several months. Meantime, the killing machine in Germany ground on. It was only when Morgenthau’s plan to exterminate the German people leaked out to the American press, which was not then entirely Jewish-controlled, that Stimson’s view prevailed. Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery, the British military chief at the time, derisively described the planned trials of Germany’s political and military leaders as “victors’ justice.” They were a mockery of real justice. In planning such “war crimes trials,” a dictum of Clausewitz was applied: “The pursuit of political aims by other means.”

THE BARNES REVIEW

21

The Allies’ Abattoirs The entire quasi-legal process reeked of hypocrisy and double standards. The chief Soviet “jurist” at the Nuremberg Trials was none other than the malevolent Andrej Vyshinsky, the chief prosecutor at Stalin’s 1930s show trials. Those sham trials had horrified the world even before the Soviet dictator became “Good old Uncle Joe.” Victims of those “trials” included hapless British engineers who had been enlisted to work in Russia only to be abandoned when later condemned as “imperialist spies.” Stalin’s show trials served as a prototype for the military tribunals and Nuremberg “trials” then being set up. These kangaroo courts excluded a defense, relied on evidence obtained through torture and made up laws as they went along. The wickedness of these trials haunted the British chief prosecutor, Sir Hartley Shawcross, for the rest of his life. He was frequently heard to declare that he “often inwardly wished that the great allied war criminals, Stalin, Churchill and FDR, could also be put on trial.” Muttering under his breath that the war with Germany had been unnecessary and a terrible mistake leading to Britain’s downfall, Sir Hartley freely and publicly admitted the ghastly mistake—but by then it was far too late.

The Wise Took Their Own Lives In stark contrast to German generosity accorded to the leaders and governments of countries occupied by the Reich, Germany’s captured leaders suffered as few other captives have in history. All civilized standards were excluded as Asiatic bloodlust for the victors’ “rights” took hold. The “fortunate prisoners” taking the quick route to their God were those who, before being captured, took their own lives and those of their loved ones. As the German leaders were rounded up, they were fed into a manic conveyor belt process of humiliation, torture and death. Upon being seized, they were first placed in manacles and placed under armed guard. Stripped of their uniforms even in freezing conditions, their decorations and insignia were torn away from them. They were then unceremoniously placed in unheated cells. In these cells bright lights burned all night and, with guards watching over them, they were even forbidden to change their sleeping posture. In fact, it was common procedure to keep the prisoners awake as a form of torture. Beatings were commonplace and typical was the statement proffered by Ken Jones of Wrexham, Wales. This former private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery had been stationed at Heide in Schleswig Holstein. He described the standard procedure when Rudolf Hoess, formerly in charge of Auschwitz, “whom the Dutch hadn’t been able to break,” was brought in to be prepared for interrogation by British soldiers.

Prepared for Interrogation “Two other soldiers were detailed with Private Jones to join Rudolf Hoess in the cell to help break him down for inter-

22

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

rogation. We sat in the cell with him night and day, armed with ax handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance,” bragged the former private. “When Hoess was taken out for exercise he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. The prisoner was simultaneously being starved. After three days and nights without sleep, Hoess finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities,” Jones concluded.10 Rudolf Hoess was afterwards charged with murdering 2,500,000 Jews, the charge of which has since been derided as ludicrous. The same unfortunate officer must have rued the day he allowed himself to be taken alive. Subsequently handed over to the Russians for “interrogation,” his testimony has since been exposed as a fallacy [TBR, July/August 2001].

The entire quasi-legal process reeked of hypocrisy and double standards. The chief Soviet “jurist” at the Nuremberg Trials was none other than the malevolent Andrej Vyshinsky, the chief prosecutor at Stalin’s 1930s show trials. Just as typical (thousands of times over) was the torture and murder of Dr. M.M. Rost van Tonningen, former high commissioner for the League of Nations in Vienna and president of the Bank of the Netherlands. As a prisoner of the Allies, he was eventually transferred to Scheveningen prison. The term “transferred” is best considered a laundered expression. On his arrival at the prison, he was physically thrown from the vehicle. As his legs had already been tied to a pole and he could not bend them sufficiently to recover his balance, he fell to the ground, much to the amusement of his baiters. He was then beaten with poles and told that he would never leave the prison alive. They were true to their word.

Perverted Sexual Brutality From there on, his daily routine was a cycle of maltreatment and humiliation which included his being stripped naked and paraded with a line attached to his penis as a bull is baited by pulling the ring through its nose. Such were the horrifying conditions of the hellhole of Scheveningen prison; such were the screams emanating from the prison that even the local police felt it necessary to intervene. The brutality persisted; finally the son of the commander in chief of the Netherlands Indian Army was beaten to death with a rifle butt, his lifeless body then hurled over the prison balustrade. Years later his adored wife, Florentine, gave an interview to the Netherlands Television Network. “Everybody thinks my husband committed suicide,

which is not true. I did not even get a death certificate. So I contacted the sanitation service since it was they who had carted his body to the cemetery. On the way I learned which cemetery it was, so I looked up the director. I was told that I couldn’t be told anything; it was all too secret. But they led me to the area where the graves of the poor were and pointed out to me a mass grave in which my husband was said to rest. Then I went to the hospital and there I learned, my husband had been tortured so horribly, the body couldn’t possibly be shown to the public.”11 It should be stressed that these were not isolated incidents and were typical of the treatment meted out to many thousands of prisoners of many nations who fell into the hands of the victorious allied armies.

Women and Children Brutalized Nor were the wives and children of prisoners spared, and although perfectly innocent of any crime, they were imprisoned, insulted and abused over long periods of time—a case in point being the wife of Alfred Rosenberg, the esteemed National Socialist philosopher and author of The Myth of the Twentieth Century, and his pretty teenage daughter. No family members were allowed to visit the accused though one or two exceptions were surreptitiously made. Not since the English king, after his victory over the French at Agincourt, had personally slit the throats of the captured nobles of France, had such acts of horror been committed. With fabricated “retrogressive laws”—laws that were hastily invented for the soon-to-come obscenities described as judicial proceedings, various German ranks were accused of planning and carrying out acts of “aggressive war” against other countries. The most eminent non-German historians and commentators have since refuted these charges. Released Soviet archive material has since confirmed the German Reich’s claims that Stalin’s Red Army was indeed poised to attack Western Europe and that Hitler’s reaction was preemptive. It is now equally well known that the attacks on Poland and France were also preemptive as both of these countries, backed and goaded by Britain, had first declared war on Germany by carrying out acts of war against Germany. France had formally declared war against her peaceful neighbor on September 3, 1939. [TBR, Nov./Dec. 2000.]

‘Cynical and Revolting’ The German leaders were also falsely accused of having carried out deliberate acts of genocide, an allegation which has beaten a retreat since the 1950s. Today, it finally stands exposed as “The Hoax of the 20th Century”: bogus blackmail to keep the German people as a milch-cow for the Jewish Diaspora and to fund the pariah state of Israel. One of the great ironies of the 20th Century is that the cold light of academic enlightenment will exonerate Hitler’s Germany from all charges of genocide. But Germany’s postwar leaders will undoubtedly be heavily implicated in the genocide of the Palestinian people by its financial support for the brutal Israeli regime.

Of the Nuremberg “trials” and other tribunals, Lord Hankey spoke for many thousands of others of similar standing who similarly expressed themselves. “There was something cynical and revolting in the spectacle of British, French and American judges sitting on the bench with a colleague representing a country which before, during, and since the trials, had perpetrated half the political crimes in the calendar.”12 These show trials were not international at all; just a few of the victor nations were responsible for them—the representatives of neutral countries were excluded. Even the U.S. Supreme Court washed its hands of any responsibility for them.

Torture of Prisoners Before, during and after these “trials,” the torture of German and other POWs was routine. At the Dachau U.S. Military Tribunals, interrogators posed as priests to extract confessions. The American judge, Edward L. Van Roden, one of the three members of a U.S. Army commission set up to investigate claims of maltreatment found: Posturing as priests to hear confessions and give absolution; torture with burning matches driven under the prisoners’ fingernails; knocking out of teeth and breaking jaws; solitary confinement and near-starvation rations. The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months. . . . [T]he investigators would put a black hood over the head of the accused and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses. All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators.

The Nuremberg Trial Louis Marschalko, special correspondent, playwright and poet, affirmed, “Out of 3,000 people employed on the staff at the Nuremberg Courts, 2,400 were Jews.” Many of them wore uniforms to which they had no entitlement.13 In the Nuremberg courtrooms crowded with exultant Jews, a torrent of lies, distortions and fake evidence, provided by bogus witnesses, was hurled at the ill-fated prisoners in the dock. The questioning of witnesses or their allegations was denied. Each of the prisoners’ faces revealed evidence of deliberately induced torture and lack of sleep. The verdicts of their vengeful accusers were a foregone conclusion. Denied a proper defense, they were to be systematically killed. All retained their courage to stand up and confront their accusers, vehemently denying the preposterous catalogue of outlandish allegations. The defensive words of the prisoners were routinely summarily dismissed and no appeals were ever allowed. On the night of October 15, 1946—the Jewish Feast Day Hoshana Raba—the American News Service announced at 2:45 a.m. that 11 members of the defeated, but nevertheless legitimately elected, government of Germany had been executed in secret.

THE BARNES REVIEW

23

Gloating Over the Dead The executions had begun at 1:00 a.m. and ended at 2:15 a.m. The bodies were then laid out in rows for witnesses to inspect and gloat over. However, of the eleven victims, Reichsmarshall Herman Göring, the World War I ace fighter pilot, had succeeded in cheating his captors by taking his own life in his cell. Such was the enormity of the allied crime and the sadistic way by which the wretched prisoners were slain that details concerning the judicial murder and burial of the eleven martyrs to Germany were kept secret. Furthermore, even in death, the victorious allies were mindful of the affection and admiration which the executed still held in German hearts. Even the victims’ families, including their children, were denied all knowledge of their loved ones’ final resting places. In advance of these judicial murders, a spokesman for the prison governor had maintained a running public commentary of sickening bad taste on how Göring and the other victims had spent their last days on earth. The condemned men passed most of their time reading and writing and talking with the two chaplains. Most seemed resigned to their fate whilst Göring spoke of his faith and lack of fear. He had fearlessly faced death many times but hitherto against honorable opponents. Two of the captives complained about the security regulations requiring the prisoners to sleep with their hands placed outside the filthy blankets. Such was the deliberate stringency of measures against suicide attempts that they were awakened if in their sleep they turned away from the brilliant spotlights shining on their prison beds. All the prisoners, manacled to guards, took exercise in the corridors of the condemned block except for Göring, who for several days declined. When taken to see his wife for the last time, he walked briskly ahead and turning to the warder chained to him remarked with a smile: “You see, I am still a führer (leader).”

Strangled to Death Julius Streicher, a man with a finer intellectual mind than has been represented by his gloating Jewish captors and their gentile propagandists, remained defiant to the end, even hurling abuse at his tormentors. He had held no official position in the government of Germany and throughout the war was a simple farmer. He was hanged merely for exposing and defying Jewish power. The official United States undertaker, who was present at the executions, stated that: “The JewishAmerican boy in charge of the execution (of Streicher) let him strangle, horribly, for a long, long minute.” Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, commander-in-chief of the U.S. Fleet, shared the outrage of America’s officer class and spoke of his horror, “The war crimes trials were a reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly its leaders.” At the time of these internationally condemned executions of Germany’s defeated leaders, Sir Anthony Eden, former British foreign minister and leading Conservative, rose

24

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

to his feet in the House of Commons and pointedly asked Clement Atlee, premier of the first postwar Labour government, if as had been rumored a film of the executions had been made. He asked if the government was taking any action to prevent the public exhibition of such film footage. Atlee replied: “[M]y attention has been called to this report. It is inaccurate. The Allied Control Council, on which his majesty’s government is represented, decided last week that no cinematographic film or photograph, should be taken of the executions. An official photographer as representative of each of the four powers record purposes, will take photographs of the bodies after death.” But was this true? Although it remains uncertain whether an actual film of the killings was made, executions of Tojo and other Japanese leaders were filmed by their American executioners and shown to the delight of cheering American audiences. Excerpts from this footage were certainly shown on British cinema newsreels. Eden’s reasons for posing this question remain unknown, but as a former World War I officer who had fought in the trenches, he may have felt pangs of guilt and self-loathing. He was also known to be anti-Jewish, a sentiment he shared with Ernest Bevan, then British foreign secretary, who by then had registered his disgust to the destruction of Germany and its frightful genocidal consequences. There are in plentiful circulation photographs of the judicially murdered German leaders. These photographs reveal that the men had died a deliberately induced agonizing death with the blood still oozing from their mouths and plenty of evidence of extreme violence to their faces.

Churchill Urinates in the Rhine When residing in Cornwall, the late Mr. Vivian Bird, the noted Revisionist contributor, happened by chance to be shown copies of the photographs of the murdered German leaders by a former British Army photographer. The proud possessor kept them as gruesome mementos and produced his large collection of looted silver plate bearing the official stamp of Adolf Hitler. These national treasures had been looted from Hitler’s Berlin Chancellery. The photographs of their murdered former leaders were distributed among the defeated German people in an attempt to terrify them into the most abject submission. Like Carthage in Roman times, Germany was to be reduced to a desert of dust and ashes, removed from the face of the earth along with its people for all time. Surrounded by oafish, grinning staff officers, Churchill, now revealed as having a penchant for wearing specially tailored female pantaloons, had already shown his contempt for European values by standing on the banks of the beautiful River Rhine and urinating into its waters. U.S. Jewish newspapers described one of the principal executioners of the German leadership as “a nice Jewish boy.” It was this man, John C. Woods (not his real name), a sergeant in the U.S. Army, who ensured that his victims met a prolonged and agonized death, literally by slow strangulation

Genocide Throughout the Ages ccording to R.J. Rummel, author of Death by Go - tured Merv and slaughtered some 1.3 million inhabitants. vernment, the biggest murderers of the twentieth That same year, the Mongol Tului slaughtered as many as 1.3 century were the (mostly Jewish) Soviet Com- million more in Meru Chahjan. Soon afterward, Jinghiz Khan munists, who killed almost 62 million of the Soviet slaughtered about 1.6 million around Herat. To acquire and people and foreign subjects. Stalin was responsible maintain his political power, Khubilai Khan reportedly for nearly 43 million deaths. Most of them, about 33 million, slaughtered as many as 18 million people. The Mongols were the consequence of lethal forced labor in the gulags. slaughtered about 30 million Arabs, Chinese, Persians, Russians, and others. Chinese Communists were next, murderChina has been bathed in blood. ing about 35 million of their people. In addiDuring the eight years (221-207 B.C.) that tion to all these killed, 27 million died from the Qin dynasty struggled for supremacy, the famine resulting from Mao’s insane ecothe estimated population of China dropped nomic policies. Percentage-wise, communist from 20 million to 10 million. In the Three Cambodia was the worst. Pol Pot’s Khmer Kingdom period (A.D. 222-589) the populaRouge murdered about 2 million people, tion dropped from something like 50 milalmost a third of the population, between lion to about 7 million. After the Ming 1975 and 1979. Millions more people were emperor Chang Hsien-chung conquered murdered by communist regimes in Af Szechwan province, he ordered scholars, ghanistan, Albania, Bulgaria, Cuba, Czechmerchants, officials, wives, and concubines oslovakia, Ethiopia, East Germany, Hunmurdered. He had their feet cut off and gary, Laos, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicargathered into huge piles. In 1681, following agua, Poland, Romania, Vietnam, and the Triad Rebellion, an estimated 700,000 Yugoslavia. All told, communist regimes people were executed in one province alone. murdered more than 110 million people. The “great peace” of the nineteenth centuThere were plenty of other murderous ry did not touch China where, during the twentieth-century regimes, too. Between 15-year Teiping Rebellion, perhaps 600 1900 and 1920, Mexico murdered about 1 cities were reportedly ruined, and as many million poor Indians and peasants. After as 40 million people were killed. World War II, the Polish government There were atrocities in Western Eurexpelled ethnic Germans, murdering about ope. During the Thirty Years War (1618a million. Pakistan murdered about a mil1648), 7.5 million people may have died. An lion Bengalis and Hindus in 1971. JOSEF STALIN estimated 137,000 people were murdered Ancient histories abound with History’s worst mass murderer. during the bloodthirsty insanity of the accounts of cities being sacked and all inhabitants slaughtered. In A.D. 1099, the Crusaders seized French Revolution. And there were genocidal horrors in the Americas as Jerusalem and massacred between 40,000 and 70,000 men, women and children. Crusaders also sacked Constantinople well. Aztecs killed people for cannibal meals and as part of in 1204, slaughtering tens of thousands of Christians. During their religious rituals, and Spanish conquistadors claimed to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the sultan of Delhi have counted 136,000 skulls outside Tenochtitlan. The Incas reportedly murdered hundreds of thousands of his subjects. killed thousands as part of their religion, too. During the twentieth century, governments killed at The Turkic conqueror Tamerlane slaughtered some 100,000 people near Delhi. Mongols were the most monstrous mur- least 80 million people and possibly as many as 300 million, derers before the modern era. In 1221, a Mongol army cap- but the most likely number is about 170 million.

A

London, reveal that the executions were used to test “efficiency methods” after it was revealed that it had taken up to 25 minutes to kill the victims. The experiments disclosed in these files confirm that the hangings did not inflict instantaneous death either by accident or design. The hearts of those hanged could be heard beating some time after the execution had taken place. Death could only be hastened when doctors injected chloroform and other substances of a lethal nature. Deaths Took 25 Minutes The experiments at Hamelin during the winter of 1946 Official British government documents recently re leased for public inspection by the Records Office in Kew, involved 64 Germans being executed there after the war’s after their faces had been smashed against the side of the execution trap. Asian callousness was having its day and relishing it. Another of the U.S. executioners was to later commit suicide. The official British executioner Albert Pierrepoint also supervised the executions and at the time showed no qualms about his dubious place in history. Pierrepoint was of French lineage.

THE BARNES REVIEW

25

end. They had been brought before “courts” transparently spurious and convicted on evidence that would have been rejected out of hand by any properly constituted court of law. Because there were batches of as many as 13 prisoners awaiting execution at any one time, it was felt that there would have been an “inordinate delay” if bodies were left suspended for an hour or more to ensure that the person hanged could not regain consciousness.

Macabre, Ritualistic Murders The director of Medical Services therefore asked Dr. F.E. Buckland, British Army of the Rhine assistant director of pathology, whether he thought there might be any objection to injecting the body immediately after execution. This would involve a lethal dose of some “chemical solution” to ensure that the body could be taken down without delay. According to the released files, Dr. Buckland felt no “ethical objections” and believed 10 percent chloroform to be appropriate. The first series of executions on December 13, 1945, were of three women and ten men. The women were hanged one by one, the men in pairs. According to the file, after the trap was sprung, the medical officer went down the stairs to the room below, where standing on a step ladder, he listened to the beat of the heart for a half minute, and then injected 10 percent chloroform. Some he injected directly into the heart, which he noted caused instant heart stoppage. Others were injected intravenously in the arm, which caused the heart to stop within a few seconds. According to Dr. Buckland all were unconscious before the injections were administered. During the second series of hangings, on March 8, 1946, he decided not to use chloroform. Instead he listened to their hearts through a stethoscope to measure how long it took the victim to die. He recorded the results in a table, which showed that it took between 10 and 15 minutes for audible heartbeats to cease. In a third series of executions on May 15, 1946, he used the electrocardiograph, an instrument that records the electrical activity of the heart. His findings showed that inaudible impulses were produced a further 10 minutes. Thus it took some of the victims up to 25 minutes to die from the initial drop on the gallows.

Michael McLaughlin is a third-generation Liverpudlian of Irish extraction. He has a varied background that includes writing and publishing and is an independent business consultant. Although well traveled, he has spent most of his life in or around Merseyside, northwest England and Wales. He has an affinity and love for Liverpool and its people. He ascribes its unique culture to the Keltic influence and the rubbing off of the genius of generations who passed through Liverpool, the crossroads of the world.

26

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

During the macabre experiments, two of the victims had started to breathe and had to be injected with chloroform. In one case records show that this took place a full 18 minutes after the execution.

Double Executions at Half-Hour Intervals Despite evidence of heart activity for up to 25 minutes, Dr. Buckland concluded that in future executions, bodies should be left hanging for 15 minutes until a heartbeat was no longer audible instead of the customary hour. This, he surmised, would “make it possible to effect double executions at half-hourly intervals.” The vengeful victors whipped up by theatrical Jewish outrage, continue to pursue clandestine murders and long terms of imprisonment of its former foes even to this day. Each murder lengthens an indelible stain across the honor of the British Isles and the United States for all time to come. It is hardly surprising that Britain and the United States find their countries increasingly loathed and feared throughout the world, their citizens treated as pariahs at worst and with contempt at best. The admiration and respect Britain once regarded as a right has long since evaporated. It is unbelievable in the light of recent events that England ever earned a reputation for decency and fair play. Such goodwill has all but gone. One can only wonder if by the fair hand of Nemesis now reaps the wind it has sown across Europe. Its present ignominious state can hardly be put down to poor luck. A far more prosperous Germany is now negotiating for the return of its stolen lands and a peaceful and mutually beneficial reconciliation with Russia whilst it turns away from its brother-nation now isolated from Europe across the North Sea. Comparisons are already being drawn between Albany (England) and Albania, another once great country but now reduced to Third World status, a European mixedrace has-been nation deserving nothing short of contempt. U.S. Admiral Leahy had concluded his remarks by saying: “I had an uneasy feeling that those 80 million Germans somehow or other would survive to fight again.” Britons can only pray that should the Germans ever dominate Europe they will do so with their characteristic high-mindedness and leave vicious unbridled vengeance to ❖ those of far lesser character. FOOTNOTES: 1 Vivian Bird research papers. 2 Berlin Diary, William Shirer. 3 Sunday Telegraph, March 26, 1972. 4 Sunday Times, April 4, 1965. 5 Arnold Leece, Gothic Ripples, Nov. 3, 1956. 6 General Eisenhower, J. Kingsley Smith (INS), Paris, Feb. 24, 1945. 7 Sen. Homer Capehart; U.S. Senate, February 5, 1946. 8 Voice of History 1944-1945. “Speeches and Papers of Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Chiang, Hitler and Other Leaders.” 615. 9 Other Losses, James Bacque, Futura, 1989. ISBN 0 7088 4984 9. 10 Wrexham Leader, October 17, 1986. 11 Deutsche Nationalzeitung, July 27 1979. 12 Lord Hankey, House of Lords, May 5, 1949. 13 The World Conquerors, Louis Marschalko; Hungarian writer/journalist.

What’s So Special About

‘The’ Holocaust? BY MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER

Every American school student “knows” that “six million Jews died during the Holocaust,” but they don’t know how many American soldiers died during World War II. Why is this? ccording to the World Almanac, 407,316 Americans died during World War II. American forces marched off to war to “save the world from Adolf Hitler” and to rescue the Jews of Europe, but the American losses during that bloody global conflict have been virtually forgotten. To this day, there still isn’t a WWII memorial in Washington, D.C., although there is a memorial to the Jewish victims of “the Holocaust.” Does anyone dare ask the simple question: “Why?” For that matter, how many Americans know how many of their countrymen died on both sides—North and South—during our own Civil War? In case you’re curious, 359,528 Americans died on the side of the North. An additional 133,821 Americans died fighting for the South. Korea? At least 33,651 Americans died there. And what about the more recent Vietnam conflict that came to a tragic close just 27 years ago? How many American kids (many of them children of Vietnam veterans) know that 58,168 Americans died there? Despite all this, knowledge—or, if truth be told, lack of knowledge—about the Jewish Holocaust of World War II dominates American education. Jewish leaders and publicists insist that the Jewish losses during World War II are “unique” and that only Jews can rightly claim the term “the Holocaust” to describe their suffering. The truth is that in World War II, virtually the entire world became a battlefield, irrespective of civilian populations. The total losses on all sides will probably never be known—but they certainly dwarf the popular figure of six million Jews who died during the conflict. And note, too, that in a departure from traditional, “civilized” warfare, civilians became fair game—even special targets—for armed attacks as a matter of course. Examples include:

A

• The Allied firebombing of the art city of Dresden, in which more civilians were killed (an estimated 350,000) than were killed, injured or missing in the atomic blast detonated over Hiroshima where some 130,000 people died. • In Nagasaki, 66,000 died or were declared missing after it too was bombed by American forces. • The Soviet massacre of 14,000 Polish officers and intellectuals at the Katyn Forest in Poland. (For years, this crime was falsely blamed on the Germans.) World War II also set the stage for a large number of reprisals and massacres that can equally be described as “genocide”—the term that Jewish leaders seek to appropriate exclusively for the deaths of Jews during World War II. Examples include: • The notorious “Operation Keelhaul” in which perhaps as many as 5,000,000 Russians and non-Russians were forcibly “repatriated” to the USSR after the war, to be murdered by Josef Stalin’s butchers. • The Morgenthau Plan, through which post-war Germany was administered by the United States and its Soviet “ally,” resulting in the death by starvation of millions of German civilians and the rape of Germany’s economy and industry. • The Bleiburg-Maribor massacres in which 180,000 disarmed anti-communist Croatian fighters and refugee civilians were killed by Josip Broz Tito’s communist army. However, massacres of large numbers of people have not been limited to wartime: • From 1917-1959, an estimated 66 million Russians perished at the hands of the Soviet government, with an additional 3 million murdered between 1959 to 1978. • In post-World War II years, Mao Tse Tung’s Red China killed a minimum of 63 million Chinese citizens; • During the reign of Pol Pot in Kampuchea (then called Cambodia) from 1975 to 1978, more than 2,000,000 were butchered by the regime.

THE BARNES REVIEW

27

The Cambodian Holocaust An estimated 2 million Cambodians died during the 1975-79 rule of the radical Maoist communists of the Khmer Rouge due to disease, starvation, overwork, torture and murder. Above is a view of Tuol Sleng Museum, known as the Museum of Genocidal Crimes. It was used by the Khmer Rouge as a detention and torture center in the late 1970. Over 17,000 people were massacred here. Today the building houses exhibits, paintings and photographs of many of the victims. The museum is best known for its map of Cambodia made out of the skulls of the victims of the Pol Pot holocaust, intended to remind future generations about the evils of communism; however, the map was recently dismantled (about March 10, 2002). It is interesting that, whereas the Cambodians can produce human remains and other evidence of their holocaust, no one can produce similar evidence for the alleged killing of Jews at Treblinka, for example, by the Germans during World War II.

• During the Boer War the British exterminated 26,370 women and children who were placed in concentration camps. British soldiers were ordered to “take no prisoners” and thousands of Boer men were murdered in cold blood after surrendering. • In Zaire, dictator Mobutu Sese Seko (backed by the U.S. CIA and Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad) reportedly slaughtered over 500,000 of his countrymen. • The historic conflict between Christian Armenians and the Turks is said to have resulted in the deaths of more than one million Armenians at the hands of the Turks. • Certain historians make the claim that millions of Afri cans died during the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Ironically, as most of these same historians (citing Jewish sources) point out, many of the top slave traders (and many of the largest slave holding families in the American South and in Latin America) were Jewish. • In the United States today, American Indians are still held in “reservations” that are hardly more than concentration camps, suffering high rates of suicide, malnutrition, disease and alcoholism, even as federal support for the reserva-

28

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

tion system is being curtailed in order to maintain continuing budget increases for foreign aid to Israel and nations that agree to “maintain peace” with Israel. If justice is to be done to the memory of the hundreds of millions who have perished in genocidal purges in the 20th century alone, then all victims (not just Jews) should—and must—be memorialized at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. ❖ Michael Collins Piper is a contributing editor of THE BARNES REVIEW and has been an integral part of the staff since its inception. Well-known among populists worldwide for his scathing attacks upon political Zionism in the pages of Ameri can Free Press, for which he is a correspondent (and formerly in the pages of The Spotlight), Piper is also the author of Best Witness: The Mel Mermelstein Affair and Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, which shows, beyond doubt, that Israel’s Mossad played a major role in the killing of President John F. Kennedy.

Vampire Killers BY ISRAEL SHAMIR

Folk stories about vampires provide readers with various remedies to the calamity of a ghoulish attack. A fistful of graveyard dirt is favored, garlic is beneficial, and the cross is most efficient. But these remedies do not always work. In Roman Polansky’s hilarious horror comedy, The Fearless Vampire Killers, the hero tries to scare off a Jewish vampire by a sign of the cross. The Jew smiles at him with a kind, understanding smile and bares his fangs; the cross does not ward him off. Polansky’s work comes to mind as this writer follows the new wave of Holocaust controversies. Revisionist historians, who are smeared by their adversaries as “Holocaust deniers,” planned a meeting in Beirut in 2001 to compare their notes on Nazi genocide. The American Jewish establishment, including the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and the Anti-Defamation League, successfully demanded a ban on the conference. The ZOA is not against revisionism as such; this organization pioneered the art of denying history and published, at the expense of American taxpayers, a booklet called Deir Yassin: History of a Lie.

D

eir Yassin was a peaceful village the Jewish terrorist groups Etzel and Lehi attacked on April 9, 1948. Etzel and Lehi massacred its men, women and children. This writer will not repeat the gory tale of sliced-off ears, gutted bellies, raped women, torched men and bodies dumped in stone quarries or the triumphal parade of the murderers. Existentially, all massacres are similar, from Chain Gang to Deir Yassin. ZOA revisionists have utilized all the methods of their adversaries, the “deniers”: they discount the eyewitness ac counts of the survivors, the Red Cross, the British police, Jewish scouts and other Jewish observers who were present at the scene of the massacre. They discount even Ben Gurion’s apology, since after all, the commanders of these gangs be came, in their turn, prime ministers of the Jewish state. For ZOA, only the testimony of the murderers has any validity. That is, if the murderers are Jewish. If the Jews are the victims, these same American Zionist organizations spare no effort in challenging revisionism. This morally dubious position was no doubt of great comfort to those who sought to gather in Beirut. By their flawed logic, if the Israelis are telling a tall tale about what happened in 1948, perhaps the Jewish memories of the Holocaust are also

flawed. It is misplaced energy. Sure, revisionists scored a few hits, and the tales of soap manufactured from human fat or Wiesel’s fiery furnaces were laid to rest. But these revisionists also question the actual number of Jewish victims. If only 1,000 Jews or Gypsies were murdered by the Nazis, it was 1,000 too many. It is hardly an important issue, as the very definition of victim is based on interpretation. A good example of “victim definition” is provided in Ha’aretz. When the Gulf War ended in 1991, there was one reported Israeli victim of the war. Today, there are officially 100 Israelis who are recognized as victims of the Gulf War, and their dependents receive a pension at Iraqi expense. Some of the victims died of stress; some could not remove their gas masks and suffocated. The Ha’aretz article asserts that many more claims were declined by the Israeli authorities. Because the definition of victim is vague, Michael Elkins, the ex-BBC Jerusalem correspondent and an Israeli citizen, is correct in arguing that the number of victims, whether there were 6 or 3 million dead, is not an issue. The “revisionists” risk their lives and fortunes trying to undermine what they call “the myth of the Holocaust.” One can understand their interest. Nowadays, one may openly

THE BARNES REVIEW

29

doubt the Immaculate Conception or (maybe) challenge the founding myths of Israel. Yet the cult of the Holocaust retains a unique, court-enforced prohibition against any investigation that might cast a doubt upon its sacred dogma. Dogmas have a way of attracting critical minds. Still, behind this red muleta, the charging bull’s horns meet thin air. The arguments on gas chambers and soap production could be very interesting, but they are quite irrelevant. Where then is the matador? Dr. Norman Finkelstein took a courageous step in his best-selling exposé, The Holocaust Industry. There is, however, an important distinction between Dr. Finkelstein and the “revisionist historians” who wished to gather in Beirut. Dr. Finkelstein, a son of Holocaust survivors, stayed away from the possibly illegal statistical controversy and concentrated on the ideological construct of the Holocaust cult. A fat lot of good it did him. A Jewish organization called Lawyers without Borders sued him in France. These lawyers were at perfect peace when the Israeli legal machine pronounced a six month probationary sentence on a Jewish murderer of a Gentile child. They did not move a finger when a 15year-old girl named Suad was placed in solitary confinement, refused legal aid and subjected to mental torture. They are visibly absent from Israeli military courts where a single Jewish officer can mete out a long prison sentence to a Gentile civilian based on undisclosed evidence. Apparently, these lawyers are aware of certain borders. Finkelstein set out to explore the secret of our discrete Jewish charm, a charm that opens American hearts and the coffers of Swiss bankers. His conclusion is that we do it by appealing to European and American guilt feelings. “The Holocaust cult1 has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world’s most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a victim state, and the most successful ethnic group in the U.S. has acquired victim status.” Finkelstein carries out a brilliant analysis of the Holocaust cult, and comes to a startling discovery: it is but a shabby construct of a few clichés stitched together by the sorrowful voice of Elie Wiesel in a limo. Finkelstein is not aware of the magnitude of his discovery, as he still believes that the Holocaust cult is a great concept, second only to the invention of the wheel. It solved the eternal problem of the rich and influential, warding off the envy and hate of the poor and exploited. It allowed Mark Rich and other swindlers to cheat and steal. It allowed the Israeli army to murder children and starve women with impunity. His opinion is shared by many Israelis. Ari Shavit, a well-known Ha’aretz writer, expressed it best in 1996, when the Israeli army killed over 100 civilian refugees in Kana, Lebanon: “We may murder with impunity, because the Holocaust museum is on our side.” Boaz Evron, Tom Segev and other Israeli writers Israel Shamir is a Jewish Israeli writer and journalist. His articles The Rape of Dulcinea, The Test Failed and Galilee Flowers can be found on many Internet sites.

30

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

have articulated the same notion. One can sum up the thesis of Dr. Finkelstein as follows. The Jews succeeded to square the circle, and solved the problem that befuddled aristocracy and the run-of-the-mill millionaires. Namely, they disarmed their opponents by appealing to their compassion and guilt feeling. I admire Dr. Finkelstein for his continued belief in the good heart of his fellow man. This writer trusts he also believes in fairies. Compassion and guilt feelings can possibly get you a free bowl of soup—not uncounted billions of dollars. Dr. Finkelstein is not blind. He noticed that the Gypsies, another victim of the Nazis, received next to nothing from a “compassionate” Germany. The capacity of Americans to feel collective guilt toward their Vietnamese victims (5 million killed, 1 million widows, Coventry-style destruction laced with Agent Orange) was recently expressed by Defense Secretary William Cohen: “There is no place for apology (let alone compensation). A war is a war.” Despite having all the facts at his disposal, Dr. Finkelstein grasps his cross and tries to frighten the vampire away. What is the source of power that fuels the Holocaust

“One of the world’s most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a victim state.” industry? This is no idle or theoretical question. The making of yet another Palestinian tragedy is now in high gear with the slow strangulation of its cities. Every day, a tree is uprooted, a house is demolished, a child is murdered. In Jerusalem, the Jews celebrated Purim by a pogrom of Gentiles, and it made page six in the local papers. In Hebron, the Kahane boys celebrated Purim at the tomb of the mass murderer Goldstein. This is no time to pussyfoot. The shabbiness of the Holocaust cult and the ease of its victories in sucking billions is solid proof of the real power behind this industry. This power is obscure, unseen, ineffable, but quite real. It is not a power derived from the Holocaust, but rather, the Holocaust cult is a display of raw muscle by those who wield real power. That is why all efforts of the revisionists are doomed. The people who promote the cult could promote anything, as they dominate all public discourse. The Holocaust cult is just a small manifestation of their abilities. This power would just smile in the face of Dr. Finkelstein’s revelations. ❖ FOOTNOTE: 1 Dr. Finkelstein distinguishes between “Holocaust,” the historical event, and the Holocaust, the ideological construct. This writer took the liberty to rename it “the Holocaust cult” in the interests of lucidity. The Holocaust Industry (hardcover, 150 pages, Item #220, $23 or softcover, Item #220A, 150 pages, $13) by Norman G. Finkelstein, is available from the TBR BOOK CLUB, P.O. Box 15877. Washington, D.C. 20003. You may also call too free at 1-877-773-9077 and charge your purchase to Visa or MasterCard. Remember to request your 20-page booklist ($1) from TBR.

The American Flag Is for All of Us BY RICHARD LLOYD JONES

This essay first appeared in The Tulsa Tribune, in 1942. It was reprinted in The Memoirs and True History of Oklahoma of Governor Murray (the populist Democrat William B. “Alfalfa Bill” Murray). An interesting story is told of the author, Richard Lloyd Jones, who was also the publisher and owner of the Tribune, an independent newspaper (something that is as scarce as roosters’ teeth today). Shortly after this essay appeared there, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith sent a delegation, including some big advertisers, to the office of Mr. Jones. They demanded that he publish an apology for the essay. Otherwise, they would pull their ads, they said, including a two-page spread that was already scheduled. “Go ahead,” said Jones. “That will free up two pages for me to write a story for our readers about this visit, and how you tried to intimidate this newspaper.” The group looked at one another and said, “Would you please excuse us for a minute while we discuss this matter among ourselves?” Shortly thereafter, they came back and said: “Well, forget it. Just run the ad anyway.” That is the tale of how Richard Lloyd Jones faced down a delegation of would-be press controllers. or several months now there has been coming to newspaper editors over the country an insistent flow of propaganda from “the Committee for the Jewish Army,” with headquarters at 535 Fifth Avenue, New York City. This committee asks the newspapers to raise money for an advertising campaign and to create local committees that will arrange for town mass meetings to demand that our government help establish and officer a Jewish army for the purpose of protecting the Jews the Germans are persecuting. The last leaflet declares, “We shall not rest until the American people are aroused to their responsibilities.” Just what are these precise responsibilities? This committee shrieks at the outrage of Germans murdering Jews. So do we all. We go further. We shriek at the outrage of Germans murdering Gentiles as well as Jews. Our government and our Allies have an increasingly growing army to halt the Germans.

F

It seems to us that this committee of friends of the Jews are doing the Jews a disservice. Every right-minded Jew, who assumes American citizenship, considers himself an American. And they who go into Army service will go in under the American flag and as American soldiers against all the German outrages. This committee, demanding that we create a separate Jewish army, speaks of the Jews as a “stateless people.” To those Jews of whom this may be true there is need not of a Jewish army, but of a Jewish state. A man without a country is lost in this organized world. A people without a country would do well to join a country or get one of their own. No one ever spoke of a German gentile, but this committee asks for an army to protect the German-Jew. You never hear of an English-Gentile, but you do of the English-Jew. The nation in which Jews live, and from which they demand protection, becomes their adjective to define the kind of Jew. But Jew is always his noun.

THE BARNES REVIEW

31

You cannot have an army without a flag. Where is the this. He knows the psychology of human nature. When they flag? There is a Zion movement. This movement seeks to rebring in the brotherhood issue the Christian has extended the establish Palestine as a Jewish nation, a country that takes right hand of fellowship as the Jew himself has not. its allotted place in the catalog of nations, as do Sweden, If the faith in their synagogues be good, which it is, then Switzerland and Spain. If and when that may come, then why not let it be open to all of us, as well as to them? Let the they will have their army. hospitality of faith and creed and dogma and temple be as Christianity cannot be blamed for the Hitler atrocities. generous as the generosity they demand. He killed the Christian churches just as he did the Jews. We A few years ago the Jews themselves set up in Chicago venture to speak of this pleading propaganda because we a great pageant, a propaganda parade. It was their own think it is injurious to our Jewish friends. announcement that this was done to show the Christian Here in America we live in harmony, as should Jew and world what we owe to the Jewish race. That presumption gentile. You can never bring up either racial made the Christian people the debtor people. or religious pleas for segregation without And people do not like to be reminded of their creating segregations. The best thing Jews obligations. What is more, the presumption is in America can do is to stop this committee’s as false as arrogant. misguided agitation. In pantomime there were paraded the As a matter of fact, before we got into stories of great Jewish achievements, remindthis hideous world war, which was none of ers of the work of great Jewish masters in sciour making, the American people had estabence, philosophy, religion, art, literature, law. It lished a boycott on German-made goods to was an imposing display. But a display that protest the German atrocities. could be matched by the Italians, the Germans, The American people instinctively love the French, the English, and heaven knows, by justice. America was born to promote and the Americans, gentile Americans if we must protect human rights, to ensure religious lidivide. berty, and to cultivate racial tolerance. All these great names that were paraded Germany is not the first country to in that pantomime had lived as citizens and persecute the Jews. The Spaniards drove asked for the protection of Italy, France, them out. With barbaric cruelness that Germany, England or other nations, yet they matched the Huns, the Russians massacred classified themselves not by the government “ALFALFA BILL” MURRAY the Jews and drove them hither and yon in they asked to protect them, but as a people large number. The history of Jewish persecution goes through who lived within, a “stateless people.” centuries as a long string of barbaric cruelties. Such a tragic The Jews in America for many years maintained an story, such an insistent one, however unwarranted, must have anti-defamation society. We have had no anti-defamation some cause. But the Jew has never looked to himself, but blackmailers among Americans of Scottish, Danish, Dutch or always to others. any other antecedents. No people can call themselves “God’s In two generations at most, the Swiss, the Dutch or the chosen people,” without by implication hurling insult at all Dane, the Irish or Scots or the Italian who comes to this counthose who would like also to be chosen. try by his own free choice so amalgamates with the people he If the Jews must have an army they must first make a has chosen to make his own that he loses the insistent and land theirs. They must build a national background and end constant consciousness of his antecedents in his happily their parasitic practices. Be a Jew in Jewland. But here, every found mutual Americanism. But the habit of the Jew, wherinch an American. The American Army and the American flag ever he goes, is always to remain a Jew. He is inclusive, thereare good enough for us all. fore exclusive. He stays racial. One creates the other. That is The author wishes to add to the foregoing the following: the chemistry of human nature. Many, probably a million or more, “refugees” have come to The Jew argues that his is a religion and not a race. If America, to avoid army service. I hope none of them will be a religion he makes no effort to spread the faith and forms of granted American citizenship; for one who will not fight for ❖ his fathers. That faith is a heritage, not a conviction. The Jew his native land would not fight for America. maintains no missions. He sends no missionaries as do Christians, both Catholics and Protestants, to make converts. All Christendom, in its multiplied denominational branches, Richard Lloyd Jones, born in 1873, was at various times the ediseeks converts to its faith. Jews who have renounced the faith tor of The Stamford, Connecticut Telegram, an editorial writer for of their fathers to accept Christianity are made welcome by The Washington Times, editor of Cosmopolitan magazine, associate the denomination they elect to enter. editor of Collier’s Weekly, editor and owner of The Wisconsin State Journal, and editor/owner of The Tulsa Tribune (1919). In addiBut the Jew seeks for his temple no gentile convert. The tion, he authored several books of short essays. very thought of a gentile seeking membership in a synagogue would astonish even a liberal Jew. The intelligent Jew sees

32

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

Some Perceptions Regarding ‘9-11’ BY RUSS GRANATA

This article was presented as a paper at the Revisionist Conference in Trieste, Italy, on October 6 and 7, 2001. Russ Granata also presented a paper by Carlo Mattogno in Washington, D.C. in June 2001 at the Barnes Review’s Second International Conference on Authentic History and the First Amendment and took part in a panel discussion at the Barnes Review’s Third International Conference on Authentic History and the First Amendment, in June 2002. efore today, the most recent country outside of my native United States in which I was a scheduled speaker was Lebanon, but of course we know that the Beirut Conference on Revisionism and Zionism was canceled due to the muzzling influence of the enemies of free speech. So it is with this in mind that I acknowledge the organizers of this Italian Revisionist Conference as dauntless comrades persevering in the honorable cause for the search of historical truth. And I for one say “bravo.” If you remember just one thing from this article, let it be simply this: If America really wanted to prevent more September-the-11th-type of attacks upon itself, it would stop doing the things which provoked them.

B

The most provocative thing, which is the main answer to the “why,” is the American government’s supplying Israel with everything for its aggression against the Palestinians and anyone else who helps them. Remember—the main reason why my country was attacked on the 11th of September was because of the one-sided U.S. support of Israel. The Muslims have other grievances about America—but none so basic as the Israeli connection. America should stop killing and maiming countless innocent children in the Middle East, such as in Iraq for example, and lift its sanctions with all their terrible consequences. Talk about terrorism—the United States has conducted, and continues to conduct terrorism. I say that for any country to reduce the probability of

THE BARNES REVIEW

33

receiving terrorism upon itself, it should simply refrain from delivering terrorism upon others. And just how are people in my country now reacting to the current media blitz? They are showing the colors. You know, I clearly remember during the early days of the John Birch Society that the wearing of American flag lapel pins by folks wanting to display their patriotism was stridently ridiculed by a Jewish-led opposition. Now, since September 11, one sees the American flag everywhere—folks are attaching them to their cars, buildings, on their persons, and street vendors are running out of flags to sell. merica is in a frenzy. As a matter of fact, it has been reported that an opinion poll of New Yorkers revealed that those people are overwhelmingly in favor of concentration camp type incarceration for those who show support for terrorists—but only of foreign terrorists, of course. There certainly have been many perceptions regarding September 11, 2001. It has been reported that there was some insider trading in insurance and airline stock market shares that points to a prior knowledge of the forthcoming attack— and it has also been reported that there were some advance warnings in the Jewish-owned investment banking system. In a different vein, there is a school of thought which perceives the attacks on New York and Washington as marking the close of the American Century—the end of global capitalism and mammonism with its devotion above all to the pursuit of wealth. This school of thought includes people who sympathize for the Manhattan and Washington victims and their families, and who at the same time share in the grief of the Germans concerning the many more victims of the Anglo-

A

American “bomb terrorism” against all those German civilians in their many towns and cities. The pictures of the gray dust of Manhattan and Washington bring back remembrances of the holocausts perpetrated by the Anglo-American bombers against the civilians of Dresden and Hiroshima. There is a school of thought which perceives our current situation as a worldwide war on unseen fronts. They see the military defeat of the Germans in 1945 as leaving the peoples of Europe and the rest of the world unprotected from the American military forces and their barbaric plundering. The victors have been controlling the vanquished of World War II by various means including an incessant “re-education” propaganda as well as infecting them with the usurious interestslavery virus of credits and unpayable indebtedness which have kept the vanquished peoples in thrall and in vassal status to this very day. The air attacks struck at the heart of the monster and lamed it. The symbolic force of September 11 struck a blow at the self-satisfied, complacent attitude dominating America today. At this point, this is as yet a comparatively small war which is a war of liberation and at the same time a world war, because the enemy of the people controls the world. There is a perception of an anti-Arab hysteria concerning the events of the 11th of September which is being whipped up into a frenzy by the controlled mass media. There is the perception that we are in the midst of another cover-up being orchestrated by the media masters. There are a lot of questions, beginning with how was it possible for those actions to have occurred—how come nobody reported any of these hijackings to any of the various security sectors? The National Security Agency (NSA) spies on the whole world via satellites—how could the NSA Echelon electronic net have not

Would the Pariahs AT the Puzzle Palace Unleash Terror on American Citizens? Body of Secrets—James Bamford’s 721-page book is a fascinating, in-depth study of the National Security Agency (NSA)—and an unusual look inside the world’s largest, most secretive and most powerful intelligence agency. Those fascinated by government surveillance and the expansion of surveillance technology will learn much about those subjects provided by a journalist who knows his subject well. But Bamford’s book is much more than a history of the NSA and its work. Body of Secrets provides a wide-ranging and in-depth examination of many never-before-told events of the last half century—from the Cold War to Vietnam and beyond. Bamford’s eye-opening expose of the scheme by toplevel U.S. government officials to launch terrorist attacks on American citizens for the purpose of sparking a war with Cuba is just one of numerous such revelations in this book.

This is also the first “mainstream” volume of recent years to boldly take on the verboten subject of Israel’s deliberate and unprovoked attack on the U.S.S. Liberty on June 7, 1967, resulting in the murder of 34 Americans and the maiming of 171 others. In an entire chapter, filled with remarkable detail, including interviews with survivors and national security establishment insiders, Bamford tells the sorry story of the attack on the Liberty and how the U.S. government itself helped cover up the murder of American men in uniform for over 30 years. Are there lessons here to be learned about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks? It is rare, if not nearly impossible, to find such outspoken and detailed commentary in any history book under the imprint of a major U.S publishing house like Doubleday. Item #286, hardback, 720 pages, $29.

TBR SUBSCRIBERS GET 10% OFF! Order your own (or extra gift copies for friends) by calling 1-877-773-9077 and charging to Visa or MasterCard. You may also send payment to TBR BOOK CLUB, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003. Please add for shipping & handling: $3 per book inside the U.S.; $6 per book outside the U.S.

34

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

known anything at all about such a multifaceted operation? It is no secret that the NSA is specialized to security in the skies—so just what was this space-based intelligence doing since it has not merely one, but several spy satellites engaged in real-time monitoring? How could Echelon have failed to notice several airliners going off course—and how could the FBI, which is engaged in apprehending terrorists in the United States, and how could the CIA, whose duty it is to keep track of enemies of the United States beyond its borders—how could all of them fail to notice anything about such an attack about to happen? Is it simply enough to try to blame it all on airport security? And what about the strange inaction of U.S. military helicopters based near New York—for example, during the 18 minutes when the second terrorist aircraft was on course for its target? Those 18 minutes would have been enough to hit it with air-to-air missiles—and all the more so because it approached the city from the Hudson River side and would have fallen in the water instead of on the city if it had been shot down.

issued a warning to its officials to halt the leak of information on this investigation which it says is happening every day since the attacks. It is felt that if there was a Mossad connection, it was the most covert one as yet. Incidentally—are reports of possible Mossad connections ever mentioned by our official mass media? But we shall soon see if Israel continues its full-scale war against the Palestinians, with all that may entail. In the meantime, there is the interesting report about CNN showing Palestinians allegedly cheering the death and destruction of the 11th of September. It is reported that the scenes were repeated around the world to spread hatred against the “callous” Palestinians—but it is said that in this case, CNN used old footage from back in 1991 showing Palestinians celebrating the invasion of Kuwait. No—our mass media would not do anything like that—would they? Just think for a moment about the impact of such images; people are hurt, emotionally fragile, and then this deceptive broadcasting has a very high probability of causing waves of anger and rage against Palestinians. It is simply immoral to show nd then there is the amazing ability of the terror- deceptive images. ists—not only were they able to calculate flight Then it was reported that “Arabs” celebrated the Trade times and make preparations without being no- Center bombing. It turned out to be Israelis. It was also reportticed by any intelligence gathering procedures— ed that a number of Israelis (not American Jews) did not show so we are told—it turns out that they were able to up for work at the World Trade Center on that fateful day of fly modern airliners. Taken altogether, it is simply incredible September 11, with all which that implies. that all these things among others were beyond the knowledge There is the school of thought which recalls seeing a or even the suspicion of the American intelligence network. series of fast flashes and hearing several explosions at the time Query: What did the Mossad know? Will not the method of the collapse—this in reaction to observations to the televised of Revisionism in the hands of researchers eventually shed images of the September attacks which suggest that explosive more light on all this? Absolutely. devices were used in the collapse of both towers. It is reported There are as yet unconfirmed reports of a U.S. military that Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico intelligence source having revealed details of an internal intel- Institute of Mining and Technology contends that the televised ligence memo that points to the Israeli Mossad having links to images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that the September 11 attacks. These attacks required a high level explosive devices caused the collapse of both towers—that the of military precision and the resources of an advanced intelli- collapse of the buildings appears too methodical to be a chance gence agency. In addition, the attackers would have needed to result of airplanes colliding with the structures. It is his opinbe extremely familiar with Air Force One flight operations, ion, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the civilian airline flight paths and aerial assault tactics on sensi- World Trade Center, there were some explosive devices inside tive U.S. cities such as Washington and New York. the buildings that caused the towers to collapse. Romero said The attacks have certainly turned U.S. public opinion the collapse resembled controlled implosions used to demolish firmly back in Israel’s favor after a year of Palestinian upris- old structures. He was quoted as saying that it would be diffiings and the heavy criticism of Israel for war crimes and cult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that. racism by the United Nations conference in Durban. The tim- If explosions caused the towers to collapse, the detonations ing of these attacks came in the midst of international con- could have been caused by a small amount of explosive placed demnation of the Israelis because of Israel’s death squad assas- in strategic points, Romero said. The explosives likely would sination of Palestinian politicians and police. have been put in more than two points in each of the two towThe September 11 attacks did not serve the interest of ers. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion, any Arab group—it served the Israeli agenda, and if docu- which attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detomented, the revelation of an Israeli involvement in those Sept- nate a second explosion. ember attacks will not come as a surprise to intelligence ex If that scenario is correct, the diversionary attack was perts, because the state of Israel has a long history of covert the collision of the planes into the towers. It was also reported operations against Western targets from at least as far back as that the president of New Mexico Tech had said that Tech had its attacks on the King David Hotel, the USS Liberty, the mur- not been asked to take part in the investigation into the der of a Scandinavian UN envoy, as well as espionage against attacks although Tech often assists in forensic investigations America during the Jonathan Pollard case, to list just a few. Well, of course the questions also arise as to who had the It has been reported that the U.S. Defense Department knowledge, the opportunity and the ability to effectively plant

A

THE BARNES REVIEW

35

such explosives, and who could have secretly accessed specific parts of those structures—and I say to you that the principal beneficiary of these attacks is the government of Israel. As an example of Israeli terrorism supported by the United States, Robert Fisk, the longtime Middle East correspondent, reported in August just how Israeli police carry out their routine, organized cruelty. He pointed out that while the Arabs called it a “day of rage,” it was the Israelis who were the ones demonstrating their rage outside Orient House, and the Palestinian youth who dared to hold up a Palestinian flag made out of paper, was seized by six border guards and plainclothes police—the boy was kicked, beaten, punched in his face and back and then kicked in the groin in front of everyone. They do not care. Fisk informs us about a tall, thin young man with shaggy brown hair who tried to escape a policeman’s grasp at the iron security barriers who was dragged back into the police lines and then attacked by eight men. There must have been 20 television cameras and a score of photographers running along with the Shin Bet intelligence police as they dragged that boy screaming up the road toward Orient House, kicking him in the chest and forcing his head back until he choked. Then the moment the youth was in the back seat of a white police van, an Israeli plainclothesman in a red shirt attacked him—and while he was being held down from the other side of the vehicle, the Israeli kicked him again and again between the legs until the young man screamed out in a highpitched cry. It was, as one of the foreign protesters muttered, enough to turn a Palestinian into a suicide bomber. And it was also very weird: here we were, reports Fisk— around 100 journalists watching 100 so-called “peace” demonstrators—Europeans, Americans, Christians, Jews, and Palestinians—and every few minutes, on a signal from a fat policeman in a blue shirt, his colleagues would run amok—after all the talk of Israel being a peace-loving state among the nations, founded upon the rule of law, the Israeli police would suddenly prove that those constant Palestinian complaints of beatings and brutality were absolutely true—right there in front of us, Fisk says. There was a border guard who became so fascinated by the beating of one man that he could not take his eyes off the fists that were hammering into the man’s stomach. A lot of the border guards were grinning when the Palestinians screamed—after a while it was obscene to watch. Up the street, closer to Orient House, here is how the Israeli police were taking care of their prisoners: In front of the horrified eyes of a group of humanitarian workers, one of whom was an American, the Israeli police beat the captured Palestinians all over again. Police horses were run into the crowd. A couple of stun grenades were also fired into the crowd. After more than an hour of this, one officer realized that this Israeli state bullying was a public relations disaster, and he shouted “Stop carrying them,” as two Palestinians were being dragged in front of the cameras as they were being beaten— “let them walk.” But of course they could not walk or even stand up. One of them had his shirt dragged over his head, and it revealed his back covered in blood. A thought kept recurring in our minds: If this is what the Israeli police do to Palestinians

36

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

right there in front of us, asks Fisk, then what do they do to them behind our backs? As far as the Palestinians and their numerous supporters are concerned, they see no difference between Israel and America since the United States has been, and is, its gigantic backer—all the way. Although the president of the United States tells us that Osama bin Laden and his followers attacked because, as President [George W.] Bush put it: “America was targeted for attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world” and that the attack occurred because they “hate our values” and that they “hate what America stands for,” and, “They have attacked America because we are freedom’s home and defender.” That is not only wrong, it is dead wrong, because death will result. ark my words: I predict that if my countrymen believe the president of the United States, and America goes to war against Islamic fundamentalism, America will only succeed in adding millions more to the millions who already hate America—and some of them will put forth more attacks even worse than those of the 11th of September. The underlying cause of the animosity against America is rooted in America’s support of Israel. Of course Islamic militants abhor America’s terrorism against all those poor folks trying to eke out an existence in such poverty-stricken places as Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan and others. But make no mistake about it, it is the continual and gigantic American backing of expansionist Israel which is the root cause of the animosity against my country. If America were not Israel’s big backer, thousands of those innocent victims of the 11th of September could still be alive. Whatever Israel has wanted, Israel has gotten—with the backing of my country. The way I see it, Israel wants a full-scale war. That is with the backing of my country, of course. In closing, I want you to know that it gives me no pleasure to tell you that I have absolutely no reason to doubt that international Jewry will continue to act as it has throughout its entire history. Israel gets what it wants. Israel wants war. Israel will get war. All the way. What makes me especially convinced that Israel will get its big war, is that my country supports Israel—all the way. Is there any hope? There is always hope—and it is my fervent hope that my country will recognize the error of its ways and change its present policy before it is too late—change its foreign policy to one of true neutrality in the spirit of my country’s father and first president, George Washington, who wisely advised my country to adopt a policy of staying out of foreign entanglements. That is my hope. I also have a wish: I wish that our current President George Bush would pay heed to our for❖ mer President George Washington.

M

Russell Granata, a retired teacher, has long been active in the field of Revisionist history. He was the author of “The Fraud of Zionism,” in the Sept./Oct. 2000 issue of TBR.

Old World

Copper Miners of Ancient Michigan BY FRED RYDHOLM

Northern Michigan is, even today, one of the world’s richest sources of pure copper. But in ancient times—long before Christopher Columbus—someone was removing thousands of tons of this metal and taking it to some place outside of North America. In all probability, the destination of the metal was Europe and the Old World, where much of it was converted into bronze for weapons and tools.

C

opper is probably the most common metal on the face of the Earth with the exception of iron. However, the vast majority of it is in the form of low-grade ores. These are a composite of many minerals such as cuprite, malachite, azurite, chalcopyrite and bornite. Its most important compounds are sulfides, oxides and carbonates. There are a number of places in the world where copper can be found in small deposits in the pure state, but it is often sealed or imbedded in a rock matrix from which it must be freed by intensive labor or, today, crushed and treated to obtain the pure metal. One of the main sources of pure copper in ancient times seems to be southern Ireland, in the Avaca Valley of Wicklow, on the coast of Waterford and at numerous points between Shibereen, County Cork, and Kenmore and Killarney in Kerry. It was also found in Cornwall, England. Sources of copper ores were widespread in places such as the east Alpine area of Europe, the Othry Mountains, small deposits in the Cyclades, Sardinia, Iberia, Slovakia, Transylvania

and the Slovian and Bosnian mountains. There were also ancient mines in the Timra Valley near the northern tip of the Red Sea in Arabah, 19 miles north of the Gulf of Elat-Aqaba. Then there were the deposits of Germany, the Danube River, the Sinai peninsula and, of course, Cyprus, where it has been said copper was first discovered. Most of the large producing copper mines in the world today are in the Western Hemisphere, especially Arizona, Utah and Montana. The largest producers today are the Utah mines, but they mine extremely low-grade ores, .05 to .08 percent. However, the methods of ore extraction are so advanced that one 350 ton truck of .06 percent ore will produce over three tons of pure copper. The Kennecott Copper Mine there has outproduced any single mine in existence. There are a few locations where pure copper is found free from the surrounding matrix—a rare phenomenon. One such spot is an island off the coast of Siberia where marble-sized globules of pure copper can be picked up along gravel beaches. Another such place high on the north coast of the Northwest Territory east of Alaska is called Copper Mine. But there is only one known place THE BARNES REVIEW

37

in the world where pieces of pure copper of all sizes can be found on or near the surface of the Earth. Here it has been freed by the forces of nature and transported by great floods for many miles. Charles Lyell’s famous “theory of uniformity” (slow, gradual geological changes over thousands or millions of years) is being seriously challenged by some modern scientists, though the foundations for these new ideas have been around for many years. A new theory is explained quite thoroughly by two British scholars, D.S. Allan and J.B. Delair, in a 1997 book entitled Cataclysm: Compelling Evidence of Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B.C. According to this theory, tremendous forces of water scoured the Earth during the deluge, which cannot be denied. We cannot go into the details here, but to this author many questions can be answered by the catastrophic explanation wherein a roving celestial body (sometimes known as “Phaeton”) entered the solar system, causing the Earth to shift its axis, buckle and heave, creating a massive flood. This all could happen in a relatively short time, whereas the ice age theory involves thousands of years. While it is too early to adopt the new theory without much more study, it does provide logical answers to many questions this writer had in the past such as: Piri Reis’s map of Antarctica without ice; coal in Spitzbergen, frozen mammals in Siberia; glacial drift where there was no glacier; etc. In either case, rising mountain ranges would have exposed unbelievable masses of pure copper from deep underground. Then the extraordinary force of billions of barrels of water gushing over the land would provide the same result that was credited to the melting glacier. The accepted glacial theory says that the melting ice provided this tremendous wash of water which raised the ocean levels as much as 300 feet. The catastrophic hypothesis is that continents sunk, and mountains rose, and new water levels were established. It is believed that “Phaeton” (the foreign cosmic body) was accompanied by several large (Moon-size) ice bodies, some of which may have hit the Earth during the cataclysm and thus raised the ocean levels. Molten magma spewing out from crevasses between the tectonic plates would have heated the Earth’s surface for some time, and the rising waters could be a plausible explanation for the disappearance of Atlantis 11,500 years ago. Many natural phenomena came together to make Michigan’s Keweenaw Peninsula unique in the world for the availability of copper. Pieces of all sizes lie on or near the surface, free from any rock matrix, in the pure state. People who survived the great floods took to the sea and became the “sea people.” Over a few thousand years of travel and exploration they eventually discovered the greatest source of pure copper on Earth. According to Octave DuTemple and his partner, the extraction of pure copper from Isle Royale, an island about 50 miles long in Lake Superior, began about 8,000 years ago. The world was in the Late Stone Age at that time, but it soon came into the “Copper Age.” In his recent book, Sailing to Paradise, J.R.A. Bailey of South Africa tells us that the first metal to be used by humans for tools was pure native copper because temperatures for smelting oxides and sulfides could not be reached until 4,000 B.C. We should also consider that the weather in the North

38

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

Atlantic in 6000 B.C. was similar to the present-day Mediterranean climate, and there were great quantities of water scouring the land, but surely by then it had settled into great rivers. Ocean levels would have still been much lower than now, and many more islands were exposed along the sea routes. Besides considering these favorable conditions, we must also overcome the prevalent idea that ancient man did not have the ability to construct seaworthy ships for a long voyage. Oceangoing vessels have been used for 40,000 years in the South Pacific, and old fish traps have been found in the Mediterranean dating back to 30,000 B.C. We know people had reached Iceland and Greenland and were sailing the most treacherous waters in the world in and around the Orkney and Shetland islands by 5500 B.C. Evidence of people known as the Maritime Archaic Red Paint culture (aka the Red Ochre culture) has been found on both sides of the Atlantic from this period. Between 5000 B.C. and 4000 B.C., the megalithic societies of Europe, builders of dolmens, menhirs, cromlechs, stone tumuli and stone circles, were spreading their ideas around the world, including in America. Many dolmens can be found on this side of the Atlantic, especially up and down the east coast, along the river routes, on mountain tops and high lookout points across the continent and in the high Arctic. By this time, ancient seafarers were well aware of the tremendous amounts of free pure copper on Isle Royale and the Keweenaw Peninsula. There is also a relatively small amount of native copper in Bolivia. There is evidence that the megalithic people had been there also.

Beginning of the Bronze Age By 3000 B.C., methods of creating bronze and brass had been discovered by amalgamating copper with tin (to make bronze) or zinc (to make brass). With the superior qualities of bronze, the world passed into the Bronze Age and the demand for copper rose significantly. During the intervening years since the great flood, the land had become more forested. These forests gradually concealed the pieces of free copper which formerly had been lying about on the surface, washed free by the flood currents and the accompanying rains. Now nature covered them with brush and soil, and the copper had to be sought out by digging. With the onset of the Bronze Age, there seems to have been an organized, concerted effort to locate this pure copper in the Lake Superior region and to pick over the accumulated drift left by the deluge for the smaller pieces far to the south. Literally thousands of diggings and old workings have been found. Modern theorists have settled on a figure of 5,000 ancient mines in the region. The vast majority of these are not “mines” in the true sense of the word, but are merely pits or holes where people laboriously removed a great piece of copper or dug for smaller pieces. It is apparent at many sites that large pieces have been removed as many of these pits are found in areas where there is no copperbearing rock. Other sites were truly mined. Early man heated the copperbearing rock and threw cold water on it to spall it away. Then the protruding chunks of native copper were hammered off using

The greatest native copper ore deposits ever found anywhere in the world and mined profitably were those of the Keweenaw Peninsula of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, and copper there has been found in size up to very large masses (“mass copper”) of up to around 120,000 pounds. A huge copper boulder on the Ontonagon River, said by Alexander Henry (the first white man to describe it) to weigh five tons led, in 1770, to the first copper mining venture in the upper peninsula. This first mining venture started near the boulder that lay 20 miles from the mouth of the Ontonagon River. The “Ontonagon Boulder,” which is as large as a Volkswagen Bug, was eventually shipped to the Smithsonian Museum and now resides by the Mall entrance to the Museum of Natural History. Michigan has been trying to get this boulder back, but the negotiations are a bit slow. Above, one of the largest nuggets of copper ever found in Michigan.

stone mauls or hammer stones usually weighing three to 10 pounds, but occasionally weighing up to 25 and 35 pounds. Tens of thousands of these carefully grooved hammer stones have been found. This method of mining was used in Ireland and other places in ancient times; grooved hammer stones have been found across Northern Europe, and the older mines show evidence of the use of fire. During the entire history of mining, ancient and modern, more copper has been taken from the mainland, but the amount of copper removed from Isle Royale by a very early date must have been tremendous. The island mines are thought by some to be older than those on the mainland. An engineer working on Isle Royale during the 19th century estimated that there were at least 5,000 pits around McCargoes Cove alone and another 5,000 on the rest of the island. At one time, around 1887, there were 300 miners employed only on the north side of the cove and another 300 at the Saginaw Mine on Rock Harbor. The price of copper at that time was $200 per ton or 10 cents a pound. In order to make expenses, to say nothing of a profit, an average of at least 30 pounds per man had to have been found each day. With a crew of 300, the production must have been fully 4 1/2 tons per day and this in an area that had already been worked in ancient times. So from the McCargoes Cove area alone, thousands of tons must have been extracted by the old

workers, for they had unworked soil, teeming with nuggets, through which to run their drifts. There are probably more than 5,000 pits on the Keweenaw Peninsula just along the top of the ridge stretching over 100 miles from Copper Harbor on the north tip to Ontonagon down the coast to the southwest. In the Rockland region, the pits formed an almost continuous line for 30 miles. Out on the Keweenaw, they extend for 15 to 20 miles from the cliff. In the Portage Lake region, the pits are more concentrated, some of them being long trenches in hillside gravel, indicating that the prehistoric miners knew of the “float copper” in the glacial debris. No one seems to have considered the many pits on the northeast shore of Lake Superior, nor the ones in the hills above the Mulligan Plains 20 miles east of Keweenaw Bay. There are also ancient pits south into Wisconsin and on Michipicoton Island, and more on the Meggacy Bluff near Marquette, to say nothing of the many that are completely covered and undetectable after 2,000 years. Modern theorists have also made many attempts to estimate the amount of copper that was removed in ancient times. Practically all of the academic estimates are based in one way or another on the average volume of 5,000 pits and an average concentration for the percentage of the ore removed. There seems to

THE BARNES REVIEW

39

be no concern and indeed no way of estimating the vast amount of copper that was taken from the surface, which there should have been as a result of a flood. We know of no large pieces exposed in modern times. If there were any, they all disappeared. At least four large pieces of copper (5 to 15 tons) that had been freed and raised on timbers have been found in mines 10 to 20 feet deep. Everyone who has written on these (three on the mainland and one on Isle Royale) assumes that they were abandoned as being too large to handle. This writer’s thoughts are that many large pieces were taken, and these few were left behind when the mining ceased, like a pile of good logs left in the woods. Large pieces (over a ton) are fairly common today, and there must have been many more. We must remember we are not talking about ore, but pure copper. The ancients had no use for ore. Over the years, estimates of the copper removed from these American mines run as high as 1 billion pounds and more, with minimum estimates running as low as 3 or 4 million pounds. Even at these lower figures, less than 1 percent of it remains in America. Even today, a couple of people using metal detectors, with a little luck, can locate a ton of copper in a weekend. It would seem that, judging by the length of time, numbers of people, and thoroughness of their investigations, the actual amount removed could be more accurately estimated higher than or at least as high as the greatest of these estimates. Of course, prospectors would today have to deal with land ownership, mineral rights, and state and federal permits.

Who Might Have Used the Copper? It has always been an assumption that copper was never melted in America during ancient times, although this idea is being challenged today. Arlington Mallory, back in the 1940s and 1950s, claims to have found furnaces in Ohio where copper was melted. He also claimed that many of the larger artifacts (ax heads, etc) that are in museums today had been cast. Up to now, it has been believed that artifacts found in America had been shaped by pounding and folding (annealing). But from the small number of artifacts found on this side of the Atlantic, and their small size and weight (seldom over a pound), this could not possibly have been the end point of the 3,000-year-old trade route. It seems that the total weight of various copper artifact collections throughout the country does not exceed more than six tons. If we consider that there may be another six tons still undiscovered, it is still an insignificant fraction of the total mined or picked up in ancient times; in fact, there are single specimens of native copper in its natural state that have been found that exceed the total and then some. Recently, a 20,000-pound piece was removed from Lake Superior, and, a few years ago, one was unearthed near Calumet, Michigan, estimated to exceed 40 tons. The locations of other large pieces of copper are known in Lake Superior today. Any way one looks at it, over 99 percent of the copper removed seems to be unaccounted for. However, while copper in the pure state or as bronze or brass had been used in ancient Europe, Asia and Africa in huge amounts, the sources of copper that were available at that time in the Old World were insignificant. The Roman soldier is said to

40

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

have worn up to 48 pounds of bronze in his uniform. Armies throughout the ancient world were equipped with bronze weapons. Statues and musical instruments, chariots, furniture and vases were made of copper and bronze. Even rooms were lined with copper and bronze. Mediterranean war vessels often had bronze rams attached to their keels that weighed over a half ton, and the Colossus of Rhodes, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, a statue as tall as the Statue of Liberty, was made of bronze. One scholar calculated that they must have worn out more copper tools building the pyramids of Egypt than could have existed in Egypt. These uses of copper vastly exceed the paltry collection of axes, arrowheads, spear points, needles, awls and decorative items that have been found in this country where the greatest source of free pure copper on Earth had been exploited at that period. Some of the earliest reports of scientists who examined the evidence in the Copper Country gave some guarded clues of their ideas. One such study was made by Charles Whittlesey in the 1850s for the Smithsonian Institution. His report, printed in 1862, contained a summary, as follows: 1. An ancient people of whom history gives no account extracted copper from the veins of Lake Superior. 2. They did it in a crude way—by means of fire, by the use of copper wedges and stone mauls. 3. They penetrated the earth, but a short distance, their deepest work being equal to those of the old copper and tin mines of Cornwall, wrought before the conquest of Britain by the Romans (about 30 feet). 4. They sought chiefly small masses or lumps, since they did not have tools for cutting large masses. 5. There is no evidence of cultivation of the soil nor of mounds, homes, roads or canals; however, they had darts, spears and daggers of copper. 6. They were numerous, industrious and persevering, and the work must have been the equivalent of 10,000 men working over 1,000 years. Since this study was completed, nearly 150 years ago, there has been some new light shed on the subject. The current thinking by the authorities is that just a small number of summer visitors over thousands of years could account for all the digging that was done and the copper that is missing. This writer believes that some of these visitors must have been seafaring people. Isle Royale, even from the Canadian side, is a dangerous passage, and the island was worked heavily. There are so many carefully grooved hammer stones that there had to be a high degree of organization. A large amount of the mining activity seems too coincide with the heavy use of copper overseas during the Bronze Age. Nowhere on this side of the Atlantic did anyone make anything that used a lot of copper. Also, there are too many of the same mining methods used on both sides of the Atlantic in ancient times to be a coincidence. We do know that ancients sought after large masses or lumps, contrary to that stated by Whittlesey. They moved huge masses out of the ground. A few were left in the process, tremendous engineering feats on any standard, and no large ones were

Native (pure) copper as a mineral is very rare throughout the world, although minor occurrences of the mineral are widespread. Glacial movements thousands of years ago scoured the land and moved geological deposits of native copper. Consequently, along with rocks, gravel and sand, the copper was tumbled and deposited over large areas of the upper midwestern United States. These glacial copper masses are called “float copper” because they occur loose in the soil. Here, author Fred Rydholm stands beside a large nugget of Michigan copper.

left exposed. The peoples of the Old World moved 100- and 200ton stones and obelisks. Why would not they move 20- and 30-ton pieces of copper? There is much evidence of ancient gardens in complicated geometric forms in lower Michigan, known to historians as the Michigan Mystery Gardens. There is also evidence of gardens on Beaver Island and Garden Island in Lake Michigan, where conditions were better than the harsh climate and poor soil of the copper region to grow crops. There must have been many groups of different preferences and abilities who sought the copper over many thousands of years. One 2 1/2-ton piece discovered, raised from a pit on Isle Royale, shows evidence that it had been reduced in size considerably by being struck hard blows with heavy stone hammers until a bulge or blister appeared. Then these raised humps were struck back and forth until a three- to seven- or eight-pound ingot broke off. This writer suspects that over a period of 2,000 to 4,000 years, many a large chunk of copper was reduced to small pieces in such a manner. Why else would they have gone to such a tremendous amount of work to free these large pieces and raise them out of the ground on cribbing if they did not plan to use them? And who could raise a thirty ton piece of copper but the megalithic people of Europe? There are many examples in Europe, and the Mediterranean area, of the raising of stones of over 100 tons. There is plenty of proof that the European megalithic people were here in those early times. Across the United States and Canada can be found many dolmens, a specific raised stone for-

mation with great religious and magical meaning [TBR, March/ April, 1998]. For years scientists have mistaken dolmens on this side of the Atlantic for glacial erratics. But the distinctive dolmens are found high on the tops of hills or mountains, or along the canoe routes or along the coasts or on offshore islands. They indicate that strangers from far-off lands have left their mark here. To them it was the same as a Christian planting a cross or a patriot planting a flag. Nothing in their spiritual world was more important than a dolmen. Strangely enough, with all this circumstantial evidence, many authorities just cannot believe there was ever a copper trade. They keep saying, “There just is not any hard evidence.” The problem here has been when new evidence turns up, it is often ignored if it does not fit the court historians’ preconceived ideas. They assume the evidence has been planted, faked or must have another explanation. Artifacts given to authorities sometimes disappear or are put away for further study. While this short paper cannot give much detail, this writer would like to mention a few examples of concrete evidence of people from overseas being here in ancient times that has been completely rejected or ignored. The first bit of evidence noticed, although it was years before this writer found out what they were, were dolmens on the mountain tops or along canoe routes. It was in 1941 that this writer saw his first one. They were named and described by Dr. Barry Fell in his book Bronze Age America in 1982. Since that time this writer has located about 100 in Canada and the United States. For years they have been called erratics, but most have

THE BARNES REVIEW

41

been erected by the old Norse and pre-Keltic people of Europe. There is at least one in each state that borders Lake Superior. And what more could you ask for than a written account? The writing is in Ogam, an ancient alphabet that came out of England and Ireland, but different examples of it have been photographed by Warren Dexter on five continents. While there are many examples of it in America, two of them deal directly with the copper trade.

Ancient Inscriptions in America About 70 miles north of Petersborough, Ontario, Canada, is a large flat rock area that was uncovered by a group of surveyors and geologists in the early 1950s. The rock was profusely covered with what appeared to be Indian pictographs. Dr. Barry Fell, an epigrapher, was able to lift off or separate the later carvings and graffiti from the ancient Ogamic record. His 1982 book on the subject, Bronze Age America, has not been widely accepted. The inscription tells of a Nordic king named Wodin-lithi, who came from the head of the Oslo Fjord in Norway and set up a colony at that spot. His mission was to establish trade relations with the Algonquin Indians. The date of the inscription was estimated by Fell to be 1700 B.C. Wodin-lithi stayed for five months, April to September. He left behind an inscription that records his visit, his religious beliefs, a standard of measurement for cloth and cordage, and an astronomical observatory for determining the Nordic calendar year. He makes no claim to the discovery of America nor to a conquest of land. Obviously he was neither the first nor the last visitor from Europe. Then there is the stone found about 1957 in the Escanaba River. Several high school students brought it to their history teacher, Joel Kela in the Gwinn (Michigan) school. Joel thought the inscription on the stone was runic, but after sending it to seven or eight Norse scholars across the country, none could tell him anything about it. Thirty years later, when a picture of the stone was sent to Dr. Fell, he identified it as vowelless Ogam, known as “Ogam consaine.” It was a prayer stone similar to those used by Hebridean fishermen from the island of Iona off the northwest coast of Scotland. Translated into English from Old Gaelic, it reads: “A prayer on my behalf—let me not drown on the waters.” These people were Kelts, and they had been coming to America for centuries. There are believed to have been two groups, one migrating from the British Isles and the other from the Iberian Peninsula (Spain). They have left Ogam messages in many places. (There is reason to believe that the tribe known as the “Erie Indians,” which has been completely wiped out, was actually Kelts.) There is a book, only 70 pages long, that sold for a dollar in 1929, and that seems to have gone unnoticed. It was written by the editor of a Swedish newspaper in Superior, Wisconsin. The author, Johan G.R. Baner, was a Norse and Indian scholar. The book, entitled Viking Mettles, was printed in Ironwood, Michigan. When Baner was a school boy in Sweden, he and a friend copied and translated a rune stone they had found high on a mountain in the province of Helsingland in Sweden. The inscription tells of the voyage of one “Vidor” across the sea to the “big mouth” near “Vinland,” the Viking name for a portion of America, and a long and arduous passage up many other rivers to an enor42

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

mous lake and a big island, where copper was obtained. Some 40 years later in America, Baner was living in northern Minnesota and then Ashland, Wisconsin, on the shore of Lake Superior. Here he met some Indians who spoke some broken oldstyle Swedish. One of them had the same name as one of Vidor’s warriors mentioned in the inscription in Sweden. The Swedish words, the Indian said, were “magic” used by their ancestors many centuries before—men who were dressed in “ice” who came from somewhere in a boat and wore eagles’ wings on their heads. Evidently, Norse traders were here before Columbus.

Arrival of the ‘Gods’ Some concrete evidence of very early Mediterranean arrivals to Lake Superior turned up north of Newberry, Michigan, a century ago. In 1898, a clay tablet and three clay statues were discovered in the ground under an old hemlock tree. The tablet was divided into 140 squares: 10 across and 14 down. In each square was a strange insignia or letter, all of them completely unknown to any of the local inhabitants. Pictures and copies of the three items were sent to the Smithsonian Institution, but they, too, had no answers. For over 75 years no one came forth with even the slightest idea of what they meant or who had made them. Finally, in the late 1970s, Dr. Fell identified the writing as a kind of word puzzle that could be read both vertically or horizontally. The language was Cypriot-Minoan, an ancient form of writing from the island of Cyprus. Cyprus was one of the very early sources of copper in the ancient world. During the Bronze Age, it became a brokerage for all of the Mediterranean ports. Copper was shipped there from many sources. Of course, the people of Cyprus would want to see for themselves the greatest source of pure copper in the world, and, of course, they would have left something to indicate that they were here. In looking over the huge amount of scientific data that is now coming to light, we can see that there were many people who made their way to these shores in the distant past. The two main reasons were out of fear and to trade goods. Fear drove many people to the four corners of the Earth. The great traders of the world were, earlier, the “sea people,” later the Phoenicians, Norse, Kelts and still later, the Vikings. All knew that the great continents of the Americas existed but kept it a secret as best they could to keep the trade to themselves. Christians in those days were scared to death of marauding Vikings. They would gladly face the unknown sea rather than spend the rest of their lives in slavery. For hundreds of years, Christian Europeans ended their prayers with “and save us from the Northmen.” Wealthy people and royal families would pay the traders huge amounts to smuggle them off to an unknown land. It was the Egyptians, Kelts, Romans and Vikings, as well as others, who drove many across the Atlantic. Poor conditions, crowding and starvation, as well as oppressive governments, are still driving modern “boat people” away from their homelands today. As regards North America, we have only learned history in our schools that starts with Columbus. It is as though nothing happened on this vast continent before 1492. But now, with

The Petersborough Inscription

SOURCE: AMERICA B.C.

In 1954, Canadian field geologists discovered a richly varied petroglyph site near Petersborough, Ontario, in which were featured ancient ships resembling those of Scandinavian and Old World sites. Also carved into the rock were images of human and animal figures with numerous Tifinag letters between the pictorial elements. Researchers at first believed they were American Indian petroglyphs created by the Algonkians, but epigrapher Barry Fell disagreed. He deciphered the carvings (just a portion shown above) and determined that they were in archaic Norse and related to a religious center established by Norse traders who were exchanging woven textiles for copper ingots. The age of the site was estimated to be concurrent with the Bronze Age, about 1700 B.C. Fell was ridiculed by the court historians of the period who disregarded the evidence of Professor Roy Drier of the Michigan Institute of Mining and Technology who said that 5,000 ancient copper mines existed on the shores of Lake Superior dating between 2000 and 1000 B.C.

tremendous amounts of new evidence turning up regularly, it is very difficult to get learned people that have been indoctrinated for the first half of their lives to see things in a different way. These are the people who are running our institutions and teaching in our schools. They are only now beginning to recognize the many errors in our teachings. Even though some of these new insights have been known for nearly half a century, it may take a half century more to get into textbooks.

The Kensington Rune Stone One great bit of startling information that must soon gain acceptance is the authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone in Minnesota. Alf Monge, a native of Norway, was the chief cryptographer for the U.S. Army during World War II. Early in the war, he succeeded in breaking Japanese enciphered codes. After his retirement from the army, he became interested in various Norse runic inscriptions that contained cryptograms. He became the first person in recent times to solve these often complex and long forgotten types of secret messages found in medieval runic inscriptions. Without going into detail on this complicated topic, we will list

some of these more famous inscriptions arranged according to Monge, by the year they were carved, as follows: 1. The Vango Inscription (Sweden) A.D. 1008 2. Byfield No. 1 (Massachusetts) 1009 3. Heavener No. 1 (Oklahoma) 1012 4. Heavener No. 2 (Oklahoma) 1016 5. Heavener No. 3 (Oklahoma) 1022 6. Maeshowe No. 18 (Orkney Islands) 1100 7. Maeshowe No. 8 (Orkney Islands) 1102 8. The Norumfont Inscription (Sweden) 1103 9. Maeshowe No. 11 (Orkney Islands) 1109 10. Maeshowe No. 12 (Orkney Islands) 1112 11. Newport Tower (Rhode Island) 1116 12. The Burserud Inscription (Sweden) 1193 13. The Hoppenstad Church (Norway) 1225 14. The Kingigtorssuag Inscription (Greenland) 1244 15. The Urnes Church Inscription (Norway) 1297 16. Maeshowe No. 16 (Orkney Islands) 1306 17. Maeshowe No. 21 (Orkney Islands) 1308 18. Maeshowe No. 15 (Orkney Islands) 1312 19. Kensington Inscription (Minnesota) 1362 THE BARNES REVIEW

43

For 70 years, runologists have been saying that these runic carvings contained so many “mistakes” that they could not be authentic. Only a few scholars, mainly Hjalmar R. Haland and O.G. Landeverk, defended the Kensington Rune Stone as authentic. But hundreds of others, including many who had never seen it, did so much damage with their presumptions of fraud that it will be years before the matter can be fully reconciled. Monge flatly states, “There is nothing more left to solve in the Kensington enigma. Everything is now accounted for.” What were thought by the experts to be errors were put there intentionally as clues that there are hidden messages. They are perfect simply because the rune master could not afford to make mistakes in these vital elements of his cryptogram. A single error could ruin the entire construction. It was the Benedictine ecclesiastics who kept the keys to the cryptograms alive for about 500 years. Among the keys one must know to solve these crypto-puzzles are the perpetual lunar calendar, known as the Julian calendar, the Norse 19 golden numbers, the Dominical numbers and the 24- and 16-rune futharks (alphabets). The secret messages often contain the date and sometimes the names of the rune master and the rune carver. The Kensington stone has the hidden message: “Herrick made me—Tollick carved me” and the dates several times, “April 24, 1362.” The dates on all the stones fall on the holy day closest to the period during which they were carved, a process which may have taken several weeks. The chances of the keys to the cryptograms turning up by coincidence are in the billions to one. Today, while the Smithsonian still thinks the Kensington Rune Stone is a fraud, there are some very scholarly and thor-

ough individuals doing the kind of scientific study that should have been done a century ago.1 It is obvious that it was cut by an experienced rune master, whereas poor old Olof Ohman (the finder of the stone and alleged to be the hoaxer) was a farmer all his life and had neither the tools nor the know-how to cut such an elaborate stone. Leaders of the study are Mr. Howard Burtness of Minnesota, Judi Reidebusch of South Dakota and Barry Hanson of Wisconsin. They have already come up with several startling facts. Just recently another rune stone has been located in the same general vicinity, with the date of a year later than the Kensington stone, 1363. We must change our thinking to realize that along with many other ethnic groups from far-off lands, thousands of Norse lived in North America for over 500 years. Getting back to the export of copper, we find the increase of the use of iron gradually reducing the demand for copper. As the Iron Age overtook Europe, production of copper slacked off. However, it was still sought in the region of the Copper Country on a much smaller scale for another 1,000 years. There was little demand for it overseas as they were reusing at least a part of the tremendous amounts they had on hand, in some cases over and over again. The important things that needed strength and hardness were then made of iron.

Michigan Is Real Copper Country Scientists have estimated that in all those thousands of years of mining, only 4 percent to 7 percent of the copper was removed. Modern mining started again in the 1840s. It was in the summer of 1844 that the first shaft was sunk near Lake Fanny

Old World-New World Link?

Left, pieces of “native” copper found in and around Lake Superior. Michigan copper sometimes has silver inclusions. Right, New World tools and weapons closely resembling Old World ones. The presence of silver nodules in the copper tools shows that they were made by cold-working, not from molten metal. These specimens are from the collection of the late Dr. Barry Fell.

44

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

Hooe at Copper Harbor at the northern end of the Keweenaw Peninsula. They uncovered a vein which proved to be the celebrated black oxide ore which yielded 86 percent of pure copper. During that first winter they removed 26 tons of it. This mine was opened by John Hayes, who went on to discover the Cliff Mine on November 18, 1844. The Cliff Mine was famous for being the first mine in modern times to yield pure native copper in the world. In England it could not be credited because the British Museum contained no specimens of massive copper and it was not known to exist. During the winter, Hayes discovered a piece of massive copper at the base of a cliff weighing 3,100 pounds. Later they unearthed a mass of copper weighing 81 tons. This became the famous Cliff Mine. As the Cliff Mine was developed, it kept turning up pieces of massive copper weighing from one ton to 81 tons. Since there were no furnaces known to handle massive copper, Hayes went to England, carrying with him samples of massive copper from 10 pounds up to one weighing 3,852 pounds. This large piece was sold to Kings College on the Strand, and some smaller pieces were given to the British Museum. The English had obtained their copper from ore combined with sulfur known as sulfate of copper, which, after crushing and washing, yielded 5 percent copper. The specimens that Hayes left in England caused great excitement among scientists, especially geologists. Hayes returned to Pittsburgh in 1848 to construct a furnace to handle massive copper. The top was removed by a crane and masses of copper were hoisted in by the same means. It proved to be a great success and the huge masses were reduced to 10-pound ingots. The first batch of ingots was sold to Robert Fulton of Pittsburgh. The Cliff Mine proved a profitable investment, earning for its owners, the Pittsburgh and Boston Mining Co., in a period of ten years (from 1846 to 1856), $3,858,000 upon the original investment of $108,000. By 1864 the great Calumet and Hecia Mining Co. was formed, which consolidated several other companies by 1871. This company is not representative of the region as no other company compares with it either in richness of rock, amounts of production, or in profits. Dividends were paid every year between 1870 and 1929 which amounted to $106,000,000. There were over 80 other mines working on the range which collectively produced 90 percent of the world’s supply of copper for about 25 years. Much of the copper was freed by huge stamping mills which produced millions of tons of “stamp sand.” Even today the beaches of the Keweenaw are gray with finely ground stamp sand. Later, many tons of stamp sand were reworked and yielded 3 percent and sometimes as high as 7 percent or more copper. The last copper mine in production in the Copper Country was the White Pine Mine near Ontonagon. It was yielding 1 percent copper, but was an underground mine with miles of roadway underground. The profit margin was just too narrow and with more economical surface mines in Utah, Arizona and Montana, it shut down in 1997. Huge masses of pure copper still remain untouched in a massive syncline beneath Lake Superior from Isle Royale to the

Keweenaw Peninsula, too deep and too expensive to mine now. As to the future of the Copper Country, it does not look bright. A new method of retrieving copper was rejected by the local inhabitants. The idea was to pump acid into the ground which would dissolve the copper. This would be pumped out and the copper reclaimed. Now with new discoveries, it looks like the next world source of copper may be from the sea floor. Massive deposits of mineralrich sulfide have been located in many areas of sea bottom. These sediments are in layers up to 300 feet thick and contain iron, zinc, copper, lead, silver and gold. There is another development that might drastically reduce the need for copper in the future. In an article in Technology 1998, Jeffrey Winters explains carbon nanotubes: cylindrical molecules of graphite which are the material of the future. They can conduct electricity with almost no resistance at room temperature and are about 100 times stronger than steel. Since a large part of the production of copper now goes to the electric industry, this could certainly curtail drastically the need for copper in the future. But Michigan’s copper country will still be unique as the one place on Earth where large chunks of pure copper have been, and still are, in the ground, just out of sight, waiting to be found. The center of the copper district has now become a national park. ❖ [NOTE: These topics and many others will be dealt with in greater detail in a forthcoming book expected to be in print by 2002 or 2003 by Fred Rydholm.] FOOTNOTE: 1 See article on the Kensington Rune Stone in the March/April 2002 TBR.— Ed. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fell, Barry, Bronze Age America, Little Brown & Co., 1982. Drier, Ray, and DuTemple, Octave J., Prehistoric Copper Mining in the Lake Superior Region, 1963. Haland, Hjalmar R., Explorations in America Before Columbus, Twavne Publishers, 1956. Mowatt, Farley, The Farfarers, Key-Porter Books, 1998. Williams, Ralph D., The Honorable Peter White, the Penton Publishers Co., 1907. Sodders, Betty, Michigan Pre-history Mysteries I and II, Avery Color Studios. Monge and Landverk, Norse Medieval Cryptography in Runic Carvings, Norseman Press, 1967. Bailey, Jim, Sailing to Paradise, Simon and Schuster, 1994. Rydholm, C. Fred, Superior Heartland, Superior Heartland, Maine, 1989. Anonymous, Calumet-Conglomerate: An Exploration and Discovery Made by Edwin J. Hulbert, 1954 to 1864, Ontonagon Press, 1893. Rathenberg, Beno, Were These King Solomon’s Mines?, Thames and Hudson. Allan, D.S., and Delair, J.B., Cataclysm, Blount Co., Santa Fe, N.M. Thompson, Gunnar, American Discovery, 1992, Argonauts, Misty Isle Press.

Fred Rydholm, an enthusiastic scholar of megalithic architecture and ancient copper mining for over 50 years, presented this paper at the Second International Conference on Authentic History and the First Amendment, sponsored by TBR, in June 2001. He has traveled the globe to clarify the real history of neolithic man including the vast travels of ancient mariners and the gargantuan structures the ancients have left behind.

THE BARNES REVIEW

45

THE

MEGALITHIC

WORLD

ocated on a hilltop called Sacsachuman north of Cuzco, Peru, the Sacsayhuaman Wall is a wonder of the world that baffles archeologists. Sacsayhuaman is built like a jigsaw puzzle out of stones of massive proportion. They include precisely worked polyhedra in excess of 132 tons. The largest of the stones weighs about 200 tons. These are granite blocks, some as large as small cars. So perfect is the fit that no blade of grass can slip between two adjacent stones. There is no mortar. The stones often join in complex and irregular ways that would seem to be a nightmare for any modern stonemason who would attempt to build such a cyclopean wall. How did their makers shape the stones so precisely? Copper or bronze tools and hematite hammers hardly seem adequate to the task. Sacsahuaman is so strong that it has survived earthquakes. (Some have suggested that the irregular shape of the stones aided in this, and that the wall was even designed

L

with this in mind.) The walls are 1/3 of a mile long and form a series of zigzags like sharp teeth. The lack of ornamentation or inscription on the stones adds to the mystery of the structure. This aspect is reminiscent of the oldest buildings of Egypt. The establishment theory is that the fortress of Sacsahuaman was completed around A.D. 1508, and that it was the Incas who built it. But it is difficult to imagine how these Indians, unacquainted as they were with such devices as engines and sophisticated implements, could have possibly cut, raised and lowered these great rocks, which are more on the scale of small hills rather than building stones, and set them so precisely in their places. The Indians themselves attributed the ruins to the work of demons or gods.

MysterY of the Andes

46

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

The Byzantine State Some Neglected Points M. RAPHAEL JOHNSON, PH.D.

The empire of East Rome1 is largely neglected in western history. It is viewed through the lens of numerous misunderstandings and a western-centered view of politics and economics that is being increasingly challenged by Revisionism. This essay will begin to establish that, far from the “Oriental satrapy” Anglo-American historians often claim defined the Byzantine state, Byzantium was a society dedicated to the well-being of its citizens in many significant ways, a dedication arising from (as opposed to “in spite of”) its authoritarian structure. This is to say that the Emperor protected the population from the violence of the land-owning and merchant classes, the victory of whom in politics often goes by the name of “republicanism.” This brief essay, then, will seek to demonstrate a few of the qualities of justice Byzantium expressed in its long history, and the extent to which she expressed these in her institutions and attitudes.

ast Rome is the direct successor to the ancient Roman state. It became Christianized under the reigns of Constantine the Great through Theodosius, providing the state with a cultural unity it had lacked previously. Its social system clearly displayed a strong interest in stability, social justice and Christian ethics now lacking in modern, utilitarian and capitalist societies. Such a presence of the Christian gospel as the core constitution of the state is easy enough to discover. The great Byzantinist Rene Guerdan, no apologist for the Byzantines, has this to say about early Byzantine social ethics:

E

In the struggle for life anyone might emerge with wealth and power; the poor and destitute were not forgotten in Byzantium; the town was full of homes for old people, shelters, charitable institutions, cheap boarding houses and, above all, hospitals. The hospital founded in 372 by Bishop Basil [St. Basil the Great] was the size of a small town. Doctors and priests were there in large numbers. Orphans were taken in and taught a trade; even lepers were not turned away. The community which [emperor] Alexis Comnenus founded on the Golden Horn consisted in a number of institutions: an orphanage, a home for the blind and a military hospital. Together they cared for about 7,000 people.2

The Byzantine state showed a tremendous interest in such institutions based on the reception of the Christian faith as well as the need for a strong and vibrant society in dealing with the empire’s many military opponents. Byzantium is clear evidence that political and social responsiveness or concern has no correlation with the existence of “republican” or “democratic” institutions. The condition of sweat shops and child labor in “robber baron” America at the turn of the 20th century strongly suggests that “democracy” is a system of government which has totally surrendered the honor of aristocracy and monarchy to the vulgar utilitarian calculus of “supply” and “demand.” In his defense of Byzantine social life, Guerdan claims: Firstly, there were no class or caste prejudices. The highest positions were open to all. Entry into the administration, the best ladder to success, was wide open to everyone. Advancement in it did not depend on age or birth, but upon merit and ability. A particularly original feature was that any man that distinguished himself by some outstanding exploit quickly made his fortune. For the state would make him generous grants of land. Within a few days, any poor, half starved plaything of fortune could find himself that owner of several country estates adorned with gold and mosaics. . . .3

Cyril Mango, the world famous scholar of Byzantine pol-

THE BARNES REVIEW

47

itics, writes that the Orthodox patriarchate of Alexandria maintained the lives of 7,500 beggars under its care. Under the reign of St. John the Almsgiver, “He built hospices for them— elongated vaulted buildings provided with wooden benches, mats and blankets.” Further, the Orthodox Church at Antioch “at the end of the fourth century provided for three thousand widows and virgins in addition to invalids, strangers, prisoners and beggars. What is more, it did so without expending its capital.” Its money came from donations and grants of land from wealthy patrons and even the emperor himself, not an uncommon occurrence. In other words, none of this was from normal taxation. Mango concludes: “It is clear that the Church performed an important social function. It acted as a redistributor by taking from the rich and providing shelter, food and medical care to the needy.”4 Guerdan describes the conditions in the most important hospital for the needy in Byzantium, the Pantocrator, which the author refers to as the “most representative”: Each sick person had a separate room, a bed side rug, a pillow, a mattress, an eiderdown—double thickness in winter—a comb, a chamber pot, sponge, basin and slop pail. Baths were twice a week. In addition, each person was issued with two bath towels, two face towels, two bathrobes and, at Easter, a special allowance to buy soap. The cleanliness of the room was ensured by frequent sweeping out [and] the use of sawdust. Every morning the inspectors made their rounds, asking about the quality of the food, for example, and listening attentively to complaints. The women were looked after in a separate wing by women doctors. Infectious cases were segregated and, thanks to an ingenious system of heating, enjoyed the most suitable temperature. New doctors were taught by qualified herbalists and a professor. A unique machine, of which everyone was very proud, cleaned the surgical instruments. The community was served by numerous kitchens, a dispensary, bakery and a laundry.5

Of course, this was all free of charge, largely funded by the Church (with assistance from the state) and was open to all classes and nationalities without exception.

Women had full proprietary rights as men, without, however, leaving their traditional roles within the family. The very well done work by the editors of Time-Life, What Life Was Like Amid Splendor and Intrigue: The Byzantine Empire 330-1453, has this to say about the empress: Rarely have women had more influence over affairs of church and state than the empresses of Byzantium. Often chosen for great beauty, political acumen, or intelligence rather than high birth, a future empress was crowned before her marriage—a fine distinction that invested her own sovereign, God-given powers. Byzantine empresses ruled a vast apparatus from within the gynaikeion, a wing of the Great Palace decorated with precious white marble and rare porphyry. She commanded her own staff, managed her own estates, and even coined money bearing her own image.8

Even prisoners of war were treated with respect that would have astounded foreign observers (and often did). It is described this way: After the ceremonies of triumph, whose ritual savagery was staged with the one object of impressing the crowd, the prisoners did not remain long at the feet of the basileus; they were quickly raised up and invited to share the riches of the empire. The chiefs were given estates, frequented the Court and took part in Palace festivals, games at the circus, theological disputes and deer hunts. These captives were even provided with places of worship appropriate to their religions. Thus the Saracens of Byzantium, the Christian town par excellance, enjoyed the use of a mosque—of a synagogue as it was then called— where prayers were said in the name of the Sultan.9

For scholars in this field, some of these protections were the reason Byzantium lasted so long and maintained the loyalty of the wildly diverse racial, linguistic and ethnic population of the empire.10 For many, such was done because it was not conquest that interested Byzantium but conversion, and the treatment of its people (including its enemies) was such as to impress them with the mercy of Christian life. ✠

R

adically, relations between the sexes were regulated differently than anywhere else in the world. “Strict equality between the sexes existed in Byzantium,” Guerdan writes, oddly without the assistance of feminism. Guerdan explains: Often, indeed, women dominated the family circle. . . . Children often chose to take the mother’s name. . . . Very revealing as regards this emancipation of women was the status of the Empress. She was the equal to her husband; she exercised absolute sovereignty, the incarnation of almighty God.6

The empress was crowned separately from her husband. She presented herself to the people alone, in her own name. “It was before her alone, glittering with embroidery, that the flags would be dipped in salute, that the great and humble prostrated themselves in the dust, that the factions offered their hymns.” The empress also held her own property which she dealt with as she pleased regardless of the Emperor’s wishes.

48

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

✠

✠

In terms of economics, the system of the Byzantine state maintained its Christian course. Economic life was dedicated to serve the state, church and the individual consumer and small landowner. For the state, it was much easier to rule a system of small landholders than a few landed magnates. Though the latter did predominate for brief intervals, the Byzantine system did all it could to protect the smaller freeholders. For one thing, it was easier to collect taxes from many small landholders than several landed magnates whose power made it very difficult to collect, and, further, whose power could whittle away the privileges of autocracy. In other words, only an absolute monarch can control the arrogance and rapaciousness of the merchant feudal landholding classes. The classic example is the reign of the most powerful of Byzantine emperors, Basil II, who went so far as to command that the rich pay the taxes of the poor in the event poor households could not afford the yearly assessment. He also forbade the transfer of wealth from poor to rich, foreshadowing the

The ancient city of Constantinople was the main obstacle preventing Venice from dominating the trade of the Mediterranean in A.D. 1203. Furthermore, there seems to have been a personal reason why the Venetian leader, Doge Dandolo, wanted to see Constantinople fall. For it was during his stay in the ancient city that he had lost his eyesight. Whether this loss came about by illness, accident or other means is unknown. But Dandolo appeared to hold a grudge. Here the Venetians use planks lashed to ships’ mastheads as flying bridges, as well as scaling ladders, to attack the great city. It was the first time the formidable city walls had ever been breached.

later theories of the distributivists. Mango writes: The concern of the imperial government in repressing “the insatiable greed” of the powerful was partly military, partly fiscal. Service in the army was at that time (we do not know exactly since when) dependent upon ownership of land worth a minimum of four pounds of gold and remained at that level until the reign of Nicephorus II Phokas who raised it to 12 pounds because of the introduction of heavier armor. Clearly, the army would have been depleted if soldier-farmers were forced to sell their holdings. The fiscal considerations are not quite so obvious, since lands entered into tax registers would presumably have kept the same status whether their owners were poor or powerful. The unstated assumption, it seems, is that whereas the poor paid their taxes, the powerful had ways of evading them.11

In Byzantine economic life, there was an endless array of regulations that had as its aim the protection of the small consumer and shopkeeper. Though it might anger our neo-liberal capitalists, these regulations did not, in any fashion, prevent Byzantium from becoming the wealthiest civilization in existence, nor, importantly, from creating two nations, one rich and the other poor. Shops were regulated so that no more than ten persons could fit into them at one time. Shops could not have many goods, but must be specialized (thus preventing the megastores of America today that have destroyed entire towns). It was forbidden to form trusts, cartels or even franchise “chains” of stores. Store owners could not fix prices or gouge in any way.

Prices were fixed by the state so as to prevent profiteering. The punishment, on a good day, was banishment and public humiliation. The maximum profit on capital was fixed by law at 10 percent, though grocers were permitted 15. Bakers and fishermen were required to report to one another the amount they were storing or had caught; the attempt here was to prevent hoarding for the purpose of profiteering. Of course, the attack on hoarding was also motivated by the state in terms of security, for during a siege, the state needed to know exactly how much foodstuffs were within the walls of the city. As a matter of policy, the Byzantine state maintained rations suitable for two years under complete blockade. Like all Christian societies, the calendar provided many days off, both feast and fasting days. According to Emperor Leo: “All work is forbidden on Sundays and feast days so that people occupied in commerce and industry may attend public worship and follow the ceremonies.” Much like in the Latin feudal West, the number of feast days was endless. Days off from work were common. The rat-race of modern America was unknown in Christian societies. Byzantium was a highly protectionist state in terms of foreign trade. All exports and imports were charged with a 10 percent duty.12 Taxes were not meted out to individuals, but villages were responsible as units (i.e. villages, not individuals, were taxed, a practice later to be followed in Tsarist Russia). The upshot of this was that the community, a well as the state, had every incentive to maintain each adult male head of house-

THE BARNES REVIEW

49

hold as financially solvent and prosperous, or else tax collection ty of citizens dedicated to the welfare of the Christian Empire. would quickly become extremely difficult, and any charismatic As to the effect of all these, Guerdan writes: military leader might exploit the situation. Villages were conWith this mass of rules and penalties one might have sidered jointly owned by peasant farmers and took on the expected the Byzantine economy to be stifled; but far from appearance of a commune. being a hindrance, these regulations turned out to be a valuAs this author has dealt with elsewhere,13 the system of able asset. Firstly, over production was avoided. Supply could readily be adapted to the generally known demand, themes was one of the most important fiscal and military forms and the prohibition of stock-piling ensured a smooth flow of of administrative reform in Byzantine history. During the mideconomic life. Thus Byzantium never experienced industridle period of the Byzantine Empire, in order to maintain a al or commercial crises. Again, importers purchased as a prosperous, loyal and numerous army and society, the empergroup: the foreign merchant found that he faced a united front and often had to lower his demands considerably. In ors created a system where grants of land were given for troops co-operation with the prefect, the association placed its as a reward for service. They were arranged in communities order and divided up the purchase in accordance with the called themes under a theme commander. Soldiers were re members’ requirements. Insistence on specialization must have resulted in a quired to supply their own horses and weapons and were able higher standard of craftsmanship, while making the growth to be called up at any moment. Plots of land were hereditary, of large monopolistic units impossible. Close supervision thereby creating a corps of farmer-soldiers who were also small made for complete secrecy in manufacturing processes and landowners and had every interest in defending their land. thus helped Byzantium dominate the world market for certain goods. Middle-men were eliminated. Producers dealt Special tax exemptions were also provided for these defenders directly with one another and consumers dealt directly of the empire. The themes, therefore, created prosperous comwith producers.15 munities of farmers with unalienable land rights. Robert Browning writes: Byzantine goods were of the highest quality anywhere. Her currency was also an important cause for Byzantium’s legGradually, the practice developed of giving the soldiers in each theme inalienable grants of land and freedom from endary prosperity: most taxation. In return they had to provide a man, a horse and arms when called upon. These citizen-soldiers largely replaced the mercenaries of late antiquity, who had become a luxury which the empire could no longer afford. But the wealth and power of the great landowners had been broken by the years of invasion of devastation [mid7th century]. The coloni, serfs tied to the great estates in perpetuity, had been largely replaced by peasant soldiers and free-peasants owning allegiance only to the state.14

A cause and consequence of Byzantium’s economic importance was the ubiquity of her currency, the besant or nomisma. In the Middle Ages it held a position rather like that of the dollar in our time, for it was the universally accepted medium of exchange. In China and Ceylon, merchant’s money bags were full of these coins which depicted the basileus on one side, and on the other, Christ, a cross or the Theotokos; none other was acceptable.16

Many have claimed that this institution, radical in nature, is what maintained the empire during its most difficult years fighting off Islam from the south and numerous tribes and nations from the north and east. It proves a deep commitment of the emperors for a reliable method of defense that supplanted the expensive and notoriously unreliable mercenary armies that predominated in the earlier parts of Byzantine history. In other words, the Empire’s amazingly humane and pleasant treatment of its citizens was necessitated, among other things, by military concerns. It created a cohesive (in spite of its ethnic and linguistic diversity) and prosperous communi-

✠ ✠ ✠ This article has related merely a smattering of the justice of the Byzantine state and the commitment to a just social order the autocracy displayed. Guerdan, Mango and Browning, just to name three, are in full agreement, with minor reservations, concerning the nature of the Byzantine Orthodox social order, many of whose features found their way to the Orthodox Balkans and then into Russia. Byzantium is the mother of Eastern European civilization and the Christianizer of millions. Her former reputation as a brutal “oriental satrapy” is slowly giving way to actual history. ❖

FOOTNOTES: 1 The population of Constantinople referred to themselves as “Romans” almost exclusively. The term “Greek” was an insult created by Charlemagne and the Latin and western Church in general to delegitimize the “Romanness” of Byzantium while attempting to “Romanize” themselves, who were mostly Frankish Germans, who had, in fact, eliminated or enserfed the original Orthodox Gallo-Roman population. 2 Guerdan, Rene. Byzantium. (Capricorn Books, 1957). 29-30. The specific time period he is drawing from is the 10th century. Some of the more important studies in general Byzantine history include: Vasiliev, A.A. History of the Byzantine Empire. (Madison, 1958); Whitting, P. Byzantium:

50

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

An Introduction. (Oxford, 1971); Obolensky, D. The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe 5001453. (London, 1971); Meyendorff, J. Byzantine Theology. (New York, 1987); Runciman, S. Byzantine Civilization. (Hammondsworth, 1975). 3 Guerdan, 29. 4 Mango, Cyril. Byzantium: The Empire of East Rome. (London, 1980) 37-39. 5 Guerdan, 30. 6 Guerdan, 34. 7 Guerdan, 34. 8 What Life Was Like, 51. 9 Guerdan, 44. 10 See the first chapter in Mango for a more detailed explanation of the numerous ethnic

groups that came under the sway of the Empire. 11 Mango, 52. 12 There was the exception of Genoa, that was provided trading privileges in return for the services of its navy and cheap credit, among other things. 13 “What John Julius Norwich Forgot to Tell You about the Byzantine Empire.” The Barnes Review. vol. VII, no. 3, 11-15. 14 Browning, Robert. The Byzantine Empire. (Catholic University of America Press, 1980). 48-50. 15 Guerdan, 97-8 16 Guerdan, 102-3.

TBR BOOK REVIEW

A New Look at

Neville Chamberlain BY GEOFFREY MUIRDEN

Neville Chamberlain, the man with the umbrella, has gone down in history vilified as an appeaser of Adolf Hitler. But is his reputation really deserved?

S

hakespeare said: “The evil men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.” He might have added that, in the case of some people, smears on their reputation live after them, and their good is oft interred with their bones. That would include people among the English such as Richard III, accused of killing the princes in the tower, yet now thought by many historians to have been innocent, and Neville Chamberlain, vilified for decades as the man who gave appeasement a bad name, derided as Hitler’s dupe. Much of the denunciation came from a book published in 1940, Guilty Men, by “Cato,” a pseudonym for left-wing critics Peter Howard, Frank Owen and Michael Foot, who blamed certain politicians, especially Chamberlain, for not preparing the country properly for war. The odium spread on Chamberlain by “Cato” still remains. Was his vilification deserved? David Dutton, reader in history, University of Liverpool, has written the book Neville Chamberlain to provide a balanced assessment. In general, he has made a good job of it, although he admits that mud, however carelessly flung, often sticks and the attempted rehabilitation he provides will not stop Chamberlain’s vilification. Dutton does show some sins of omission. For example, he either does not know, or does not say, what is mentioned in TBR, August 1997, that Chamberlain’s decision not to go to war was based partly on an assessment of greater war preparedness of Germany made by the aviation hero Charles Lindbergh. But Dutton mentions that Chamberlain was not a fool; that he showed considerable competence in his management of the economy as chancellor of the exchequer after the Great Depression. Little known is the fact that Winston Churchill worked well with Chamberlain and admired his skill. And, as a matter of fact, the replacement of Chamberlain by Churchill was greeted with much resentment by government insiders in 1940. (118) Chamberlain was regarded by people who worked with him

In March 1938, Britain had relatively few airplanes. Neville Chamberlain, above, asked his air marshals if they could defend Britain against the German air force. They said “no,” and the wily Chamberlain spoke to Adolf Hitler of his desire for peace. In Britain, the Communist Party organized demonstrations against Chamberlain for not immediately declaring war against Germany. THE BARNES REVIEW

51

The Munich Agreement was the rectification of one of the most flagrant injustices of the Versailles Peace Treaty. It took nothing from Czechoslovakia to which that country could rightly lay claim, and gave nothing to Germany which could have been rightfully withheld. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said in July 1939: “Unhappily, bad feeling between nations is fomented daily by poisonous propaganda in the press and by other means. I cannot help feeling that if only we halt this war of words and some action is taken which would tend to restore confidence of the people in the peaceful intentions of all the statesmen of Europe—if only that could be done, then I still feel that I know of no question that could not and should not be solved by peaceful discussions. Above, Chamberlain holds up the treaty signed with Hitler, on a London airstrip, after returning from Munich on September 30, 1938.

as not dynamic, but reliable and trustworthy. He had a hatred of war, not only because of its slaughter, but because it diverted resources away from other much-needed areas. He understood that a strong economy would be the basis of an extended war. He did not want strong defense expenditure if the country could not afford it. Chamberlain also understood the dangers posed by Germany, Japan and Italy, and realized that an attack on one could also invite attacks against England from other Axis powers. His information was to the effect that Germany was much better armed than England and that Germany spent three times as much on military equipment during 1933-38 than England did. (173) Gen. William Edmund Ironside said: “We cannot expose ourselves to a German attack. We simply commit suicide if we do.” (173-74) But Chamberlain built up fighter aircraft instead of bombers as being a less expensive usage of limited resources. (174) British intelligence reports in 1938 warned that it would be militarily advisable, if war came, to defer it for six months to one year. Despite this evidence that Chamberlain deferred war at least partly because he feared Britain could not win, there are still some people who believe that only “Nazis” then or “neo-nazis” now wouldn’t have wanted war. Although Dutton is a writer for the “Reputations” series that seeks to rehabilitate those victimized by history, it is not likely he, or any other writer in the series, would treat Hitler as sympathetically as, for example, did R.M. West in TBR (Jan./Feb. 2002).

52

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

However, a contemporary politician whom no one could accuse of being a “nazi,” Robert Menzies, prime minister of Australia, supported appeasement even after World War II began and did not consider the invasion of Poland sufficient motive for war. His attitude is discussed at length in the book Menzies and Churchill at War (David Day, North Ryde, NSW, Australia, Angus & Robertson, 1986, ISBN 0 207 15741 3), showing that Menzies, who wanted to preserve the British empire in prewar form and, if need be, negotiate a deal with the Axis, sought to wrest control of the British prime ministership out of Churchill’s grasp, even though it became politically expedient for him to deny conflict with Churchill in 1941. If Menzies had gained power instead of Churchill, he might have reached an accommodation with Germany or accepted a Nazi peace offer instead of fighting to the end and bringing in America, the way Churchill did. He might have continued Chamberlain’s appeasement, and he would have sought to preserve the British empire, instead of destroying it, the way Churchill did. ❖ [NOTE: All page references above cited refer to the English edition of the book Neville Chamberlain, David Dutton, author, London, Arnold (co-published in the United States by Oxford University Press, New York), 2001, paperback. ISBN: 0 340 70627 9.]

Geoffrey Muirden is a longtime Revisionist author working in Australia with the Adelaide Institute. He has been a frequent contributor to THE BARNES REVIEW.

Drugs & Power Politics America’s Complicity in the “Opium Wars” BY STEPHEN J. MARTIN

If Red China decides to launch a war against America, perhaps she has a reason that Americans have long forgotten, if they ever knew about it: our country’s role in the Anglo-Chinese opium wars. world events approach the crisis stage, it would be instructive to keep in mind the overwhelming importance of the worldwide drug trade (with its unfathomable potential for riches and its power to render entire populations physically, financially and morally destitute) in determining the overall political agendas and foreign relations imperatives of the world’s “great” leaders. Now that Afghanistan has once again been made safe for the poppy, the two great Western allies (the United Kingdom and the United States—having been partners in drug trafficking for many years) seem prepared to follow the dictates of Adam Smith’s dogma1 of “profits at any cost” (otherwise known as “free trade”) to its ultimate conclusion. This will be a holocaustic war between East and West, with China the major player on the one hand, and the United States and Great Britain the majors on the other. Having lain down this thematic gauntlet, it will be necessary for this writer to revisit the origins of the major drug trafficking of the present day. This will take us back to the 1830s and to the exotic river port of Canton. Most of the famous “tea ships” of the great British merchant fleet at one time or another carried an illicit cargo of opium from the British-controlled poppy fields of Bengal to the pitiable addicts of China, and then silver and tea back to London. [Opium was legal in Britain but illegal in China.—Ed.] While the late TBR writer George Fowler has already done a stellar job in introducing the topic of the opium trade to China,2 he did not cover the American complicity and duplicity in this traffic, and the consequent rise throughout the 1820-1850 period of the “treason faction” among the American seaboard elite.3 (Today’s “liberal Eastern establishment” and rampant anglophilism seem to have sprung from the British-connected corruption of this time.) A pat truism of the sailors of these Far East routes was that the drug profits reaped via the suffering of millions of Chinese addicts always and inevitably exacted a just tribute

AS

from the souls and even the physical constitutions (whether the person in question partook of the substance or not) of the drug lords of the time. Many like William Jardine—perhaps the richest of the rich, and master of the famous British opium-trading house of Jardine & Matheson—died young, unable to enjoy in retirement the fruits of their ill-gotten gains. The Chinese had passed edicts making the importation of the drug illegal as early as 1729, but with the British seizure of the opium-growing Bengal and Bihar regions of India in 1750 and the full trade monopoly in opium granted to the British East India Company (BEIC) by the crown in 1797, elaborate and systemic skirting of Chinese law became commonplace. In 1799, stronger edicts from the Chinese emperor forced the British to use ports of entry other than Canton (or nearby Whampoa Island) such as the old Portuguese base at Macao (and later Lintin Island in the bay outside “the Bogue”—aka the Zhu [Pearl] River estuary). By 1804, open trading in the drug had returned to Canton, but an elaborate system of unofficial acceptance (including massive bribery) began to grow surrounding the local Chinese officials known as the “Hongs.” The British East India Co. monopoly was revoked in 1834, and the influx of private traders helped spark both an increase in opium smuggling and minor diplomatic explosions beyond the pale of the cozy Hong system. Until 1827, this had been mostly a British operation, but in that year, the American brig Nile, with a 23year-old seaman by the name of Robert Forbes aboard, carried the first known American load of opium.4 It was Americans who bailed the British out when their traders were deprived by the Chinese of their freedom of movement by being confined to their “factories” along the Canton wharf for several weeks in 1839. It was also American ships which stepped in to carry on the legitimate tea trade for the thirsty English parlors when all British vessels were chased away from Canton and their offshore staging point of Lintin Island during the preliminary stages of the First Opium War (1839-1842). While the Warren Delano (FDR’s ancestor) conTHE BARNES REVIEW

53

nection to the illicit traffic is known, several other prominent American families—most notably the Forbes family (of Russell & Company)—also derived their wealth from the same source. Those Americans who were involved in purely legitimate traffic in no way outnumbered the drug runners,5 and the American share of the opium volume was significant, especially in running the less valuable but still very remunerative Turkish variant. To be sure, the British lion conducted the lion’s share of this dirty business, but, especially in the years preceding the outbreak of war between England and China, American assistance in “laundering” drug profits and in funding drug purchases was of immense importance to the entire operation.6 The fabulously well-connected and well-heeled Barings Bank of London had secured the account of the Second Bank of the United States during the 1820-1837 period (until Old Hickory made his important political statement) and U.S. drafts and bills of exchange were a key cog in the process.

Tories such as the young William Gladstone, the future Liberal Party prime minister, whose lovely sister had become a shameful addict by the age of 24 as a result of the laudanum prescribed for a minor malady. Partially as a result of this painfully personal experience with the effects of opium, Gladstone spoke vociferously (to no avail) against the Whig government and their opium policy and warmongering. To those who would argue that the British parliament (or crown) was unaware of the machinations of their BEIC servants and their independent merchants, this writer offers the following quote from Gladstone’s speech to Parliament on the eve of the First Opium War:

ven more shameful than the unscrupulous nature of the opium traders was the degree to which missionaries followed the opium ships or the British gunboats closely behind as they succumbed to an “ends justifies the means” evangelism. One British missionary, Charles Gutzlaff, served as an interpreter for many British drug transactions and even governed a conquered Chinese city during the First Opium War. William Jardine was able to overcome Gutzlaff’s scruples and enlist his services with logic such as this:

The literature is also replete with statements that place beyond doubt the fact that the British monarchs were fully aware of the opium trade. Forbes, in the developing crisis preceding the outbreak of hostilities, bemoaned the fact that “some delay occurred in the delivery of the opium . . . it being very desirable, in the existing state of the market, to deliver as much as possible to the Queen’s order.”9 Charles Elliot, the British high commissioner for the China trade at Canton before and during the First Opium War declared that, “it became highly necessary to vest and leave the right of exacting effectual security, and full indemnity for every loss, directly in the Queen.”10 This statement followed his promise to the opium dealers at Canton that the crown would make up the loss of the 20,000 chests of opium that the merchants were to deliver up for destruction to the Chinese authorities. This became an unstated casus belli as Elliott, Lord Palmerston and others of the Tory persuasion could not bring themselves to the point of arguing before Parliament that the British taxpayers ought to foot the bill for a 2-million-pound reimbursement to the opium traders. Instead, the British decided to extort this “proper repayment” from the Chinese as part of the reparations of the First Opium War. Numerous pamphlets and articles appeared in the London papers prior to the advent of the war, declaring that the British flag had been insulted by the demand that the smugglers give up their product. The claim was also circulated loudly and widely that the Chinese wanted to stop the opium trade because their lead anti-opium official (a very worthy and upright individual named Lin Tse-hsu, nicknamed “clear sky” because of his universally-recognized probity) wanted to start growing poppies on his own land and wanted merely to eliminate foreign competition. That the war was later pursued with typical British efficiency and a characteristic cruelty is also well documented. In what is perhaps the first documented case of the use of an “iron-clad” warship, HMS Nemesis, was utilized with deadly effect in destroying the lightly armed Chinese junks in September, 1840. After the fearsome and strange vessel had made

E

Tho’ it is our earnest wish that you should not in any way injure the grand object you have in view by appearing interested in what by many is considered an immoral traffic, yet such traffic is absolutely necessary to give any vessel a reasonable chance . . . and the more profitable the expedition the better we shall be able to place at your disposal a sum that may hereafter be usefully employed in furthering the grand object you have in view (mission work), and for your success in which we feel deeply interested.7

American and British drug dealers alike (such as Captain Robert B. Forbes) also made their lack of scruples plain in oft-repeated comments about the effects of opium being no greater a vice than that of drinking hard liquor. Despite this ridiculous bit of propaganda, the ill effects of this terribly wasting and addictive drug were well known to many of the British Stephen J. Martin is a political activist and pianist, and is a native of Pennsylvania who now resides in Maine. Steve, a former teacher with a deep interest in politics, ran for state representative for Maine’s 141st district, but narrowly lost by only 160 votes out of 4,000 cast. An expert on the history of the northeastern borderlands and Atlantic Canada, Steve authored a fictional 420-page historical manuscript called Oak Valley Green, describing the machinations of the international banking community in America during 1833-1882, and is planning a sequel to cover 1883-1913.

54

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

. . . [J]ustice in my opinion is with them (the Chinese); and whilst they, the Pagans, the semi-civilized barbarians, have it on their side, we, the enlightened and civilized Christians, are pursuing objects at variance both with justice and with religion . . . a war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated in its progress to cover this country with a permanent disgrace, I do not know and have not read of.8

Ceremonial burning of opium pipes accompanied Chinese governmental anti-opium crusades throughout the 19th century.

light work of a Chinese fleet, Basil Lubbock, in his beautifully illustrated and rare volume titled The Opium Clippers, says: “Captain Hall (of the Nemesis) was a regular fire-eater; and he soon persuaded the others to make a second landing. This time the torch was put to everything, buildings, farms, rice-stacks and hay-stacks—so that when the night set in, the whole district round Keeto Point seemed to be in flames.”11 (This so perfectly conjures up memories of British pyromaniac action elsewhere—such as in Acadia in 1755 and in the Scottish Highlands of the same period as that covered by this article— that one must be reminded of the presence of those British “observers” at Waco and wonder who suggested what to whom.) Lubbock also drops an admission that “. . . terrible sights were seen in Chapoo [sic], not only canals but the drinking wells were found to be crammed with the bodies of women and children.”12 While it is made clear in other accounts that the atrocity alluded to here was done by the heads of the Chinese families who were intent upon preventing their loved ones from falling subject to abuse and rape, there must have been some reason for them to fear the reputation of the British to the point that such extreme measures were resorted to. The reduction of the city of Tin Hai (pop. 50,000) on the Island of Chou-shan was accompanied by so many acts of violence and destruction that,

as a result, the Chinese word “lut” afterward passed into English as our word “loot.”13 Jack Beeching describes the treatment of the Chinese citizens of that unfortunate town thusly: “The Madras artillery got four of their guns ashore, and within two hours had them mounted on the hill; at a range of 400 yards they began systematically firing into the now defenseless town. As night fell, thousands of Chinese civilians could be seen streaming out of the gates, headed for the countryside, sped on their way by a dropping fire from the British artillery. None of the British have been wounded.” He continues by citing an article in The India Gazette, which admits, “[A] more complete pillage could not be conceived . . . the plunder ceased only when there was nothing left to take or destroy.”14 The worst scene of carnage was in the mainland city of Ningpo. Beeching once again describes it well for us: Chinese soldiers poured down the long, straight street that led from the south gateway to the marketplace in the center of Ningpo. But, they ran headlong into a British howitzer, brought up by ponies and quickly unlimbered. Captain Moore, commanding the howitzer waited until the range was the length of a cricket pitch, then poured in grapeshot. Fire from the gun tore terrible holes through a dozen bodies at a time. The front ranks were pressed on from behind, and had no

THE BARNES REVIEW

55

chance whatever of escape. As the howitzer fired again and again, the street became choked up with the dead and dying. Before the Chinese broke and ran, the piled blockage of mutilated flesh was 15 yards deep.15

Different writers claim that other motives than the concerns over opium drove the Emperor and the Queen to the last expedient. Some say that the term “Opium War” is unfairly pejorative to British interests. Some writers claim that the Emperor was seriously alarmed by the drastic reversal in the flow of silver as a result of the increase in opium imports, and that his concern for the addicts was secondary. Others say that the Queen was tired of the Chinese attitude of insularity (and agreed to the war primarily due to a desire to force China to adopt “free trade”) and that keeping the opium profits flowing into British coffers was only a secondary object.

I

t would not be unfair, in light of the foregoing, to declare the First Opium War to have been the first of many wars fought for “new world order” principles, including the establishment (from about that time) of the worldwide recognition of “international law” and “a comity of nations.” Commodore Perry’s actions in Tokyo Harbor take on added significance as we consider the degree to which transatlantic policy makers both in the United Kingdom and in the United States were apparently viewing the geopolitical significance of global trade in such a similar light. In any event, the British attitude towards the Emperor’s desire that the foreign traders be confined to the narrow sphere surrounding the City of Canton was about to force (as a result of the 1842 Treaty of Nanking) a big change in Chinese economic relations with the west. British disdain for any sovereignty other than their own combined with the forces of “free trade” was to result in many more Chinese cities being opened to the blessings of the drug traffic. Not until the first decade of the twentieth century were Chinese officials able to successful eradicate this menace from their land. The United States was paid back for the arrogance of Perry in 1941, but the Chinese have, as of yet, never paid the West back for the horrors of the opium trade or the rude challenges to her sovereignty of the mid-19th Century. FOOTNOTES: 1Adam Smith argued in Wealth of Nations that human behavior is best ordered by each man following his own desires. This apparently included indulging in drugs, as he argued that opium, for example, was as legitimate a product of commerce as any other, and that no laws ought to be allowed to rein in the “invisible hand” of unhindered markets. 2TBR, June 1997, 3-7. 3Anton Chaikin in his book Treason in America documents how the mutual connivance of British and American opium traders has led to a political rapprochement between American and British policy makers—effective to this very day—which easily rises to the level of treason. 4Lubbock, 61. 5Chang, 31 & 42. Chang argues on pages 30 and 31 that: “At this time it was widely believed that Americans had little to do with the opium traffic. This idea was refuted by a contemporary British journal The Quarterly Review: ‘On the contrary, with one or two

56

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

Historians who would try to dismiss the Parliament’s role in the travesty of the Opium Wars can be refuted by statements such as this one from the duke of Wellington (1838): “Far from looking gloomily upon this opium trade, Parliament has cherished it, suggested its extension, and has deliberately looked for means of promoting it.”16 The Select Committee of the House of Commons further dooms such revisionism by their own admissions found in their reports of 1830 and 1832: “The profit derived from the opium trade with China has of late years proved a most essential aid to Indian Resources,” and, further, “It does not seem advisable to abandon so important a source of revenue as the east India Company’s monopoly of the opium in Bengal.”17 Perhaps most poignant of all in the debate against those who would dismiss British responsibility for the opium trafficking is the response received at the outbreak of the First Opium War to the open letter by Commissioner Lin Tse-Hsu addressed to Queen Victoria: Let us suppose that foreigners came from another country, and brought opium into England, and seduced the people of your country to smoke it. Would not you, the sovereign of the said country, look upon such a procedure with anger, and in your just indignation endeavor to get rid of it? Now we have always heard that Your Highness possesses a most kind and benevolent heart. Surely then you are incapable of doing or causing to be done unto another that which you should not wish another to do unto you.18

Apparently Queen Victoria was not at all “incapable,” as her answer soon came in the form of a 37-gun broadside. Karl Marx’s defense of British opium policies is also instructive regarding the degree to which most anti-republican political ideologies lean upon the same drug-festooned financial pillars. “The Chinese, it is true,” he once said, “are no more likely to renounce the use of opium than are the Germans to forswear tobacco.” Furthermore, Marx warned, “It would seem as though history had first to make this whole people drunk before it could rouse them out of their hereditary stupidity.” The current “War on Terror” is now likely to rouse a sleeping giant the West had better left lying. ❖

exceptions, every American house in China was engaged in the trade. There were American depot ships at Lintin and along the coast. . . . [I]n fact, both in the act which originated the dispute of 1839, and the insults and outrages consequent thereon, our transatlantic brethren had their full share.’ ” He also argues that “The Americans dealt in both Indian and Turkish opium, but they so monopolized the Turkish product that many Chinese concluded that Turkey must be a part of the United States.” 6Greenburg, 164,165. 7In Chang, 95. 8In Beeching, 110. 9In Chang, 166. 10Ibid., 188. 11Lubbock, 227. 12Ibid., 231. 13Beeching, 116. 14Ibid., 115-16. 15Ibid., 146. 16In Chang, 49.

17Ibid., 48. 18Ibid., 137.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Beeching, Jack, The Chinese Opium Wars, N.Y., Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich, 1975. Chang, Hsin-pao, Commissioner Lin and the Opium War, Cambridge, Harvard U. Press, 1964. Collins, Maurice, Foreign Mud, being an account of the opium imbroglio . . . , London, Faber & Faber, 1946. Eames, James B., The English in China, Curzon Press, 1974. Greenburg, Michael, British Trade and the Opening of China, Cambridge, University Press, 1951. Holt, Edgar, The Opium Wars in China, Chester Springs, PA, Dufour Editions, 1964. LaMotte, Ellen N., The Opium Monopoly, N.Y., MacMillan & Co., 1920. Lubbock, Basil, The Opium Clippers, Boston, Charles E. Lauriat Co., 1933.

THE BARNES REVIEW

57

1. Gen. Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck. In 1904 he was posted to German South West Africa during the Hottentot and Herero rebellions and became an expert in African affairs. He took command of Germany’s East Africa forces in 1914 and was undefeated in World War I. (TBR, Jan. 1996.) 2. It seems these stone structures were actually built as pens for Bantu slaves. Historian Wilfred Mallows argues that the owners of the black slaves were not indigenous Africans but probably natives of southern India, a place where gold was also mined and where similar building techniques were used. (TBR, April 1997.) 3. The Scythians. (TBR July/Aug. 1998.) 4. The Kelts of the British Isles. Boadicea led her people in righteous revolt against the occupying Roman empire. They decimated a large part of the IXth Legion and went on to capture and burn London, the home of a nest of native collaborators with the invaders. (TBR, Jan./Feb. 1999.) 5. Long before Christopher Columbus, or even the Vikings. Viking sagas tell of white men they call “papar,” Old Norse for “Christians,” living in Cape Breton Island and New England, a land the Vikings called “Hvitramannaland” or in English, “White Man’s Land,” or “Irland ed mikla” (“Greater Ireland”). (TBR, Sept./Oct. 2001.) (There is also

much evidence that polytheistic Kelts were here hundreds of years earlier, but there is no way to determine if these were specifically Irish Kelts or if they were from some other part of the once-vast Old World lands of the Kelts.) 6. The bold men of Massachusetts were minting their own, debt-free coins, starting May 27, 1652. Although the coins were of good silver, the action was technically illegal in the eyes of the crown. (TBR, Nov./Dec. 2000.) 7. An Indo-European group known as the Tokharians, now extinct, was found by archeologists to have lived in the area surrounding the Taklamakan Desert. (TBR, July/Aug. 2000.) 8. The Anti-Federalists. (TBR, March/April 2001.) 9. The Great Sedition Trial of 1944. (TBR, Nov./Dec. 1999.) 10. The Gateway of the Sun weighs more than 10 tons. The calendar frieze on the east end of the monument may incorporate advanced scientific information, several researchers believe. Some of the other monoliths at Tiahuanaco weigh as much as an incredible 440 tons. This ruined South American city is just one of many evidences of a high civilization that may have spanned the globe, long before the Sumerians. (TBR, Sept./Oct. 1998.)

Tiahuanaco’s Gateway of the Sun (attributed by many to a pre-Inca civilization), called “one of the marvels of the Americas,” is cut from a single block of andesite stone and weighs more than how many tons (left)?

10

What action was taken by the Franklin Roosevelt administration to, in the words of historian Harry Elmer Barnes, make the administration “seem opposed to fascism” when in fact FDR was pursuing totalitarian policies?

9

What group of men, at the founding of the American nation, accurately predicted that the federal government would become tyrannical?

8 One of the first acts of American rebellion against Britain occurred in the Massachusetts Bay colony, more than a century before the War for Independence. What was this act concerning?

2 3 4 5 6

What nation of white men, strikingly similar to the Gaels of Scotland, complete with tartan clothing and red beards, turned up in what is today western China around the eighth century A.D.?

7

According to scholars and based upon long-suppressed literature, when did the Irish first discover America? One of the greatest queens Britain has known was Boa dicea of the Iceni tribe of what race of people? What vanished race of whites can the world thank for teaching us to ride horses? What is the most plausible explanation of the “great ruins of Zimbabwe” (right)?

Who, in 1919, was known as “the Bush Ghost of Africa” for his ability to appear and disappear without being detected by the British ?

1

THE TBR History Quiz

THE DEGRELLE SERIES — CHAPTERS 19 & 20

The Bloody End of Ernst Röhm:

The Night of the Long Knives BY GEN. LEON DEGRELLE

man who had not yet appeared openly in the Röhm-Schleicher-Strasser affair was Vice Chancellor Franz von Papen. Von Papen had been placed in this position close to Adolf Hitler by Oskar von Hindenburg on January 30, 1933, to keep an eye on the Führer, and after three months he was already hardly more than a vaguely recognized supernumerary in the chancellery. He was morose. That Hitler fellow, who was gaining an ever-greater following, was getting on his nerves. It irritated him. No one had ever followed him. In 1932, in the Reichstag, he had been whipped by a vote of no confidence, with 96 percent of the parliamentary vote line up against him. Impeccable in his cutaway and top hat, but, still, what did he amount to? On June 14, 1934, Hitler had gone to Italy for his first visit with Mussolini. Papen, who was not brave by nature, was going to take advantage of this absence of his chief executive to make a speech against him three days after his departure which would be a rather pedantic match for the twisted in trigues and the delusions of his former friend, then ex-friend, then new friend, Gen. Kurt von Schleicher. The speech that Papen was going to make was not his own. A “ghost” had written it for him. His name was Edgard Jung, and his anti-Hitler writings were going to cost him rather dearly. Papen had chosen the town of Fulda, an old ecclesiastical metropolis, for pulling off his coup. The text that Jung had given him was almost laughably exaggerated, particularly inasmuch as it was supposedly written by a man who, while occupying the Reich’s chancellorship before Hitler, had proved himself incapable of accomplishing anything at all. That he, whose political past had been a cipher, should

A

58

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

pretend to give lessons to someone who had just put more than two million of Germany’s unemployed back to work in only a few months was utterly presumptuous. Papen spelled out his prefabricated pages at Marburg with the conviction of a stationmaster: “Germany must not be a train launched haphazardly into the future, with nobody knowing where it will stop. . . . Great men are not created by propaganda, but by the valor of their actions and the judgment of history. . . . A defective or half-educated intelligence does not qualify one to engage in a battle against the spirit.” But the bishops, champions in all types of political quarrels, and whose spokesman Papen had hoped to be that day, had immediately fallen silent, miters inclined meekly over their breviaries. Bruning, the ex-chancellor, realizing that Papen’s speech had misfired and smelled of heresy, would clear out that very week and make tracks for the Americas. When Hitler had deplaned on his return from Venice, he would make it his business to reply. After having read a report of the speech written by Papen’s ghost writer, Hitler moved to deal with his very strange colleague, who had thought he was being so clever. A few hours after landing, Hitler challenged him symbolically from the rostrum at a public meeting at Gera in Thüringen: “All these little midgets who imagine they have something to say will be swept away by the power of our idea of the community. Because, whatever criticisms they believe themselves capable of formulating, all these midgets forget one thing: where is this better thing that could replace what is? Where do they keep whatever it is they want to put in its place? Ridiculous, this little worm who wants to combat a so powerful renewal of a people.”1 Schleicher, who had been delighted by Papen’s sabotage,

The brown shirted storm-troopers, or Sturmabteilung (literally “Storm Department” or SA), led by Adolf Hitler’s old comrade-in-arms Ernst Röhm, were the Nazi faction who had done the street fighting and the window smashing of the early days. After the Nazis rose to power, a massive campaign was undertaken to give the SA a new public image as the heroic pioneers of law and order in the land. The German legend in this propaganda poster emphasizes the new image of civic virtue: “Service in the SA trains you for comradeship, tenacity and strength.”

was just putting the final touches on his future government. The list was already making the rounds: Everyone’s role was already fixed, as we may read in Benoist-Méchin: “Hitler will be assassinated. Schleicher will become chancellor in his place. Gregor Strasser will receive the portfolio of national economy. As for Ernst Röhm, he will become minister of the Reichswehr.” “It is fitting,” Schleicher says, “that the army and the national formations be in the same hands.” “Strasser and Röhm having approved his program, Schleicher felt assured of success.”2 And so a general who was choking with ambition, a general who six months earlier, as minister of national defense, was directly responsible for the Reichswehr, was now determined to place all the generals of the Reichswehr, his own colleagues, under the command of Röhm, the constant insulter of the old army. Resentment had turned him into a traitor, this swaggering, cynical man. The thirst for power was consuming him with fury, and he was ready to ally himself with anyone

to regain it. Harshly, historian Benoist-Méchin writes: “He considers that the hour has come to make someone pay for his disgrace. A general without an army, a fascist without conviction, and a socialist without any support among the working class, in losing his cabinet post he has lost his friends. But now that events seem to be turning in his favor, he sees the possibility of getting it all back with a single blow.3 Rumors leaked out concerning the still semisecret crisis, causing frightened reactions. On June 25 of 1934, Hitler was informed that in 15 days the gold reserves of the Reichsbank had dwindled from 925 million marks to 150 million. “The agitation of the SA has caused disquiet in industrial and banking circles.” Everything tallied: the army threatened; anarchy on the horizon; the specter of devaluation hanging over the Reich. Hitler’s lieutenants raised their voices. Rudolf Hess on June 26, 1934, announced on the radio at Cologne: “The Führer will pardon minor personal deviations considering the magnitude of the achievements made. But if the Party is obliged to join

THE BARNES REVIEW

59

battle, it will do so according to the National Socialist principle: if you strike, strike hard.” “National Socialism can not be replaced,” he added, “not by hand-picked conservative forces nor by criminal intrigues given the pompous name of ‘second revolution.’ Adolf Hitler is, and remains, a revolutionary in the grand style. He has no need of crutches.” Hermann Göring was just as firm at Hamburg, on June 28: “Pulling a people out of the mire to raise it toward the sun is a superhuman task. The basis on which the Reich rests is confidence in the Führer.” Then his warning sounded like the crack of a rifle: “Whoever seeks to destroy that confidence has signed his death warrant.” More and more precise information was brought to Hitler, some of it real and some no doubt exaggerated by uneasy imaginings or understood only more or less exactly by the listening services. These transcriptions of wiretapped telephone conversations of the conspirators were full of gross insults directed at Hitler. Secret agents followed the suspects. Letters were seized as well, very accusing letters. Göring was most impressed by the documents. “Feverish preparations are also being made in the National Socialist camp. The black militia are in a state of alert. A certain number of SS sections are armed with rifles and 120 cartridges per rifle. The shock troops known as the SS Section Grossbeeren are on a war footing. Certain formations of the automobile corps, or NSKK, are mobilized and armed with carbines.”4 t is June 28, 1934: Hitler has left for Essen, where he has to attend a wedding and to meet some big industrialists in the field of metallurgy. On the following day, June 29, 1934, he will inspect the Labor Service camps in Westphalia. Then, out of the blue, he is going to receive news of the most alarming nature: “Röhm has given orders to all the SA commanders to join him on the shores of the Tegernsee [Lake Tegern] on the afternoon of June 30, and all units of the SA have received orders to remain at the disposal of their commanders.”5 Now, the next day, the first of July, is precisely the day when the leave decreed by Hitler for the 3 million men of the SA is to begin. Hitler himself has given us an account of these particularly dramatic hours.

I

The mobilization of the SA on the eve of their departure on leave seemed to me very unusual. I decided therefore to relieve the chief of staff of his duties on Saturday, June 30; to put him under close arrest until further orders; and to eliminate a certain number of SA commanders whose criminal activities were notorious. Given the tenseness of events, I thought that the chief of staff would probably not obey me if I ordered him to Berlin or elsewhere. I consequently resolved to go myself to the conference of the commanders of the SA. Relying on my personal authority and on the decisiveness that had never failed me in critical moments, I planned to arrive there on Saturday at noon, to dismiss the chief of staff on the spot, to arrest the principal instigators of the plot, and to address a rousing appeal to the commandants of the SA to recall them to their duties.6

60

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

Hitler has just ended his Westphalia visit amongst the young workers. He has arrived to spend the night at a hotel he is fond of, the home of an old comrade, Herr Dreesen. From his balcony he looks out over a beautiful stretch of the Rhine. As if the heavens wish to join in his personal drama, a storm, thunderclaps and flashes of lightning burst in a veritable Wagnerian hurricane. Goebbels has come at 9:30 p.m. in a special plane from Berlin to bring him other messages that have come in hour by hour to increase the disquiet. “The alert has been given in the capital for the following day at 4 p.m. Trucks have been requisitioned to transport the shock troops; the action will begin at 5 p.m. sharp with the sudden occupation of the ministerial buildings.”7 There is no time to sift through each of the reports, to weigh which are true and which fraudulent or imaginary. “I’ve had enough of this.” Hitler cries. “It was imperative to act with lightning speed. Only a swift and sudden intervention was perhaps still capable of stemming the revolt. There was no room for doubt here: it would be better to kill 100 conspirators than to let 10,000 innocent SA men and 10,000 equally innocent civilians kill each other.”8 Hitler reflects for several minutes. All the others around him remain silent. Dealing severely with old comrades from the early fighting days is rending his feelings. “I was filled with respectful admiration,” Paul Joseph Goebbels will later relate, “a witness to that silence, for that man upon whom rested the responsibility for the fate of millions of human beings and whom I saw in the process of weighing a painful choice. On the one hand the peace and tranquillity of Germany, on the other those men who up to now had been his intimate friends.”9 “However far they’ve gone astray, they are fighting comrades. For years they have shared the same anxieties, the same hopes, and it is with horror that he finds himself forced to be severe with them.”10 “It caused me a great deal of pain,” Hitler admitted. But when it is necessary, a leader must rise above his attachments. Hitler is going to anticipate the meeting called by Röhm and get there before anyone else. He will not saddle anyone else with the dangerous mission. He will go himself. Six persons in all will accompany him, with Goebbels sticking close to his chief. At Godesberg, Hitler’s personal plane is damaged. Happily for him. Because at the Munich airfield they were lying in wait for his plane. A replacement Junkers is brought out, and they climb into the black sky still marked by the storm. Hitler does not say a word during the two hours in the air. Will he still be alive this very evening? He is an old soldier, and he will hurl himself straight at the obstacle, as he did at the front in Flanders and at Artois. He still had time before the plane took off to receive a telephone message from the gauleiter of Munich, Wagner: “11:45 p.m. Several hundred SA men have gone through the streets shouting abusive slogans against Hitler and the Reichswehr and chanting their song: ‘Sharpen your long knives on the edge of the sidewalk’.” Leaping hastily from his Junkers at Munich, Hitler immediately goes up to the two SA generals there to meet

Röhm in the afternoon and tears the silver leaves from their collars. Immediately afterward he sets off by car for the village of Wiessee, where Röhm is staying. With him in the car are Goebbels, Otto Dietrich—his press attaché—and three bodyguards. A truck carrying some SS men overtakes them on the way. “Mein Führer,” Goebbels says, “the one who strikes first holds the winning hand. The first round in a fight is always decisive.” To strike before anyone else is precisely what Hitler has in mind. As a true fighter, he is going to pounce. he tension between Hitler and Röhm had been building for quite a while. At last it was to reach its deadly climax, on June 30, 1934. Adolf Hitler is first to leap from the car onto the porch of the Hanselbauer boardinghouse, where Ernst Röhm and his staff are sleeping. It will only take a few seconds from start to finish. The entry door is sent flying. Hitler rushes in. Goebbels and the few SS of the escort run from room to room and burst in before a single sleeper can budge. And what sleepers. The most inveterate of Röhm’s accomplices, Heinz, who had paraded with him so arrogantly at Breslau just a while ago leading nearly 100,000 SS members, is still sleeping, stark naked, clinging to his chauffeur. He tries to seize a revolver, is dumbfounded. It has been Hitler’s wish that he arrest Röhm personally. “Alone and without any weapons,” wrote Churchill admiringly, “Hitler mounted the staircase and entered Röhm’s room.”11 Röhm’s face turned crimson at the sight of Hitler, his features still more marked by the drinking bout of the previous night. He was dragged outside and shoved into a truck with several other survivors. Hitler turned away from him as though dismayed. Suddenly then, there appeared a series of cars arriving at Wiessee with a first lot of the principal SA commanders coming to Röhm’s meeting. Hitler rushed into the road, stopped the vehicles and then personally arrested those of the leaders whose complicity was known to him. He knew precisely who Röhm’s confederates were and who were the ones not informed, and the latter were released immediately. The others soon found themselves in the Munich prison. BenoistMéchin has revealed:

T

These latter had intended to let the other officers in on their plans during the course of the Wiessee conference, thus confronting them with a fait accompli, since the action was to begin at almost the same time in Berlin and in Munich. Those who could not be won over to Röhm’s side would have been arrested and handed over to the commando shock troops.

It is not hard to guess what the commandos would have done with them.12 Just at that moment (at 7:45 a.m.) the commando shock troops especially created by Röhm were also arriving, transported by a column of trucks. That irrruption of commandos at such an early morning hour was revealing. If the shock troops were getting here that early, it could only mean they had

received orders at dawn for the very special mission that Röhm intended to assign them. And for the second time it was the Führer himself who then and there went to intervene. “Hitler, still without weapons, advances toward the detachment commander and orders him, in a tone brooking no answer, to turn around and go back to his quarters. The detachment commander complies, and the column of trucks goes off back in the direction of Munich.”13 Thus at every stage it was Hitler who braved the risks and put his own life on the line. Churchill has written: “If Hitler had arrived an hour later, or the others an hour sooner, history would have taken a different turn.”14 Other SA bigwigs were due to arrive in Munich by train. The moment they got off, they were arrested one after the other right at the station. When Hitler got back to the “Brown House” at 11 o’clock in the morning, he had the list of prisoners sent to him immediately. There were 200. He himself checked off on the sheet the names of the leaders most implicated, to be shot. Not there either did he try to saddle someone else with the decision and the execution order. Responsible for his country, he took his responsibilities to his country very seriously. Churchill himself would be obliged to recognize the fact: “By his prompt and ruthless action he had assured his position and no doubt saved his life. That ‘Night of the Long Knives,’ as it was called, had preserved the unity of National Socialist Germany.”15 The afternoon of that same day, the SA commanders checked off on the list were brought to face firing squads. “It is the will of the Führer. Heil Hitler! Ready. Aim. Fire!” That took place at exactly 5 o’clock in the afternoon, the hour when those executed would presumably have ended their meeting with Röhm. And Röhm? He was still alive. Hitler was still hesitating “because of services rendered.” It was not until the next day that Hitler, mastering his personal feelings and bitterness, would accept, at Göring’s insistence, that the chief culprit finally be executed. At that moment Hitler declared that it would be necessary to let Röhm carry out his own execution. A revolver was placed within reach of his hand. He refused to touch it. Ten minutes later a burst of machine-gun fire killed him in his cell. Hitler, true to his friends to an almost impossible degree, received the news with dismay. “When a young SS officer hands Hitler a message telling him that Röhm has rejected suicide and has been killed, Hitler’s face grows very pale. He puts the message in his pocket. A few minutes later he withdraws to his apartment.”16 Hitler had an iron fist. But he couldn’t bring himself to use it on an old comrade. Hitler had returned to Berlin by 6 o’clock in the evening of the same day. He had landed at Tempelhof without a hat, “his face as white as chalk, fatigued by a night without sleep, unshaven, offering his hand in silence to those who were waiting for him.” Göring presented him with a list; at Berlin, too, the repression had been swift and severe, harsher than at Munich. The civilians implicated had been executed at the same time as the SA commanders linked to Röhm and to Gen.

THE BARNES REVIEW

61

Kurt von Schleicher. From the moment of receiving the watchword “hummingbird” at dawn, a column of mobile guards had joined Göring’s personal guard. Göring, like Hitler, had made them a brief speech: “It will be necessary to obey without question and to have courage, for putting someone to death is hard.” In a flash the commanders who were in league with Röhm and Schleicher were arrested and lined up against a wall at the Lichterfelde prison. And here, too, it was the chief who made the decisions. One by one, Göring looked each prisoner in the face. This one. That one. As at Munich, he personally and on the spot stripped those most deeply involved of their rank before their execution. Gisevius, though a most notorious anti-Hitlerite, has felt it necessary to make mention the confessions of the guilty: “Uhl is the one who affirmed, a little while before he was shot, that he had been designated to assassinate Hitler; Balding, one of the section commanders of the SA, that he would have made an attempt against [Heinrich] Himmler.” Ernst, the boozer with a dozen cars, who spent 30,000 marks per month on banquets, had been seized at the very moment when he was about to leave for the Canaries. Hardly more than a few hours, and it was all over. Those mentioned were not the only ones to perish. At Berlin, the political center of all these intrigues, various important civilians had been mixed up in the affair. First there had been Vice Chancellor Franz von Papen, the sly schemer. That morning his arrogance rapidly diminished. Göring had personally treated him with consideration. They were colleagues. Papen was still vice chancellor. “I very strongly advise you,” Göring told him, “to stay at home and not to go out for any reason.” He had immediately understood and scurried away to safety. He would stay buried at home without giving a moment’s thought to his close colleagues sitting in his ministry, even those who had prepared for him the malicious text of his speech at Marburg prior to Röhm’s operation. s for what might happen to them as soon as he abandoned them at the Vice-Chancellery, he would pay no heed. Afterward he would never ask for a word of explanation concerning them, nor would he express a single regret. They would die that morning nevertheless. His right-hand man, Erich Klausener, had tried to flee and had been killed by two bullets fired through his half-open door. He had wanted, on leaving, to get his hat, and that had made him lose the few fatal seconds. He died with his hat on like a conscientious citizen. Papen’s own private secretary, Herbert von Bose, would fall right in the cabinet building. Edgard Jung, Papen’s chief writer, the one who had drafted his tirade of June 17 for him word for word, would be mowed down just like the two others. Thus, after having been abandoned heroically by Papen, the first clique was done away with. Next it would be the turn of the Schleicher-Röhm government’s future minister of industry, Gregor Strasser. He had hidden in a factory that made pharmaceutical products. He

A

62

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

was caught there, and he was not long in being liquidated. And what of the most important of the plotters, the future chancellor of post-Hitler Germany, Gen. Schleicher? He had been the first to pay. He had not even had time to seek a refuge. He had been surprised in his office and shot down dead before he could utter a cry. His wife, who had flung herself upon him, had died bravely under the same hail of bullets. Always when such things happen, over-excitable people go too far or indulge their darker instincts, and in the violence of the brawl, some innocent people did get hurt. These casualties are what today we chastely call “regrettable mistakes.” More than one occurred on June 30, 1934. A peaceable professor named Schmit was confused with one of the conspirators of the SA: they both bore the same surname and first name.17 Victim of another mistake was an old and good friend of Hitler’s, Father Schlemper, a former Jesuit. In the heat of such operations, where for an hour perhaps public tranquillity is at stake, errors and excesses do take place: they are regrettable, condemnable and, no matter what one does, inevitable. In August and September of 1944, one Charles de Gaulle would show very little concern when his partisan thugs, with abominable refinements of cruelty, assassinated tens of thousands of Frenchmen (104,000 according to official U.S. figures) quite simply because their ideas of what was good for France differed from his. And among all the killers of 1944, communist and Gaullist alike, not a single one, not even of those caught red-handed in the worst excesses, would ever be the object of sanction. The same is true of Belgium, where the assassins who freely massacred, in isolated villages, hundreds of parents and children of the Volunteers of the Eastern Front, would without exception enjoy total immunity from punishment in 1945; indeed, they would receive pensions, would be decorated. If Hitler was forced to act severely on June 30, 1934, he had brought himself to it not a moment too soon. He might easily have been forestalled that day by the Röhms and the Schleichers. His indecision during May and June very nearly proved fatal. From the moment he became aware that mistakes or abuses had been committed, he took action with equal severity against the police or militiamen who had committed them. Three such were shot that same evening. “I shall order punishment,” he exclaimed, “for those who have committed excesses. I most emphatically forbid any new acts of repression.” In his book, The Storm Approaches, Churchill would make it a point of honor to repeat—almost with admiration— the reasons that obtained with Hitler when he saw there was no other solution but to crush the imminent rebellion: “It was imperative to act with lightning speed at that most decisive of all hours, because I had only a few men with me. . . . Revolts are always put down by iron laws that are ever the same.” Churchill, in a similar case—one may be sure—would certainly have reacted with a harshness one hundred times more implacable. How many dead were there? There, as in everything else when it comes down to rapping Hitler, the figures tossed out have been prodigious. A thousand dead according to some. More than a thousand dead according to others. “The estimates

as to the number of persons liquidated vary from five to seven thousand persons,” Churchill would later write, as if ashamed of having more or less praised Hitler for his energy. hat is the evidence to support such claims? None. These fantastic figures were thrown into the air to chill the blood of the great public outside of Germany. For the warmongering press that had been howling at Hitler’s heels for nearly two years, it offered a great opportunity to heap opprobrium upon him, albeit with a shameless disregard of truth or even probability. That method of provocation, repeated at every turn from January of 1933 on, was infallibly conducive to the furious hatreds that degenerated into World War II in 1939. If we stick honestly to the historically established exact figures, how many plotters or confederates fell on June 30, 1934? Seventy-seven in all, Hitler affirmed to the Reichstag. Even an enemy as impassioned as Gisevius, the ex-Gestapo member, had to admit, doubtless unwillingly: “If we are to believe the rumors, there were supposedly more than a hundred men shot on that Sunday alone at Lichterfeld. But that figure is certainly exaggerated; in all probability there were no more than 40.”18 Well, there was no other day of execution but “that Sunday.” Recapitulating all the names he was able to collect throughout the entire Reich, Gisevius arrived at 90 men executed. Moreover, he further adds: “supposing the figure to be exact.”19 And the other 910 . . . or 6,830 . . . whose execution was trumpeted around the planet by the Churchills or junior Churchills? Gisevius, who was on the spot and had anti-Nazi informers all about, didn’t arrive at a hundredth of Churchill’s figure, and he had only this pitiful explanation to offer: “Those who had been listed as dead turned up again at the end of a few weeks.” In a few hours, and at a price that when all is said and done was not very high—about one death per million German citizens—Hitler had restored order to his country. “Never was a revolution less costly and less bloody,” Goebbels would be able to say. The anguished screams and the lies of foreign critics were the most arrent hypocrisy. What did the swift execution of a handful of mutineers on the verge of rebellion amount to alongside the wholesale slaughter perpetrated by the so-glorified grand ancêtres of the French Revolution? Napoleon himself had Gen. Malet shot for conspiracy. The duc d’Enghien was killed at his order in the ditches of Vin cennes. He exterminated tens of thousands of Breton opponents in his punitive expeditions. “A political act is not judged by the victims it makes but by the evils it averts.” It was the philosopher Joseph de Maistre who said that, a century and a half before Röhm and Schleicher were executed. With undeniable personal courage, Hitler had been able to control the situation at limited cost and in a minimum of time. It cannot be doubted that without his resolution, Ger many would have fallen into chaos, and rapidly. The army would certainly have moved to block Röhm, resulting perhaps in thousands of deaths and an immediate collapse of the eco-

W

nomic recovery. The shouts of triumph that went up abroad to see this brief outburst of violence taking place in Germany were very significant; one would imagine they were already sounding the mort. It was not only Hitler’s right but his duty to take the redhot iron from his forge and cauterize the canker to the bone. He did so with the force and the promptness that were needed to spare the nation anything beyond the swift and radical elimination of the corruption. He was the judge and the sword. A true leader in such hours of extreme peril must face up to things, not hesitate a second, but decide and act. The German people understood as much even that same evening. When Hitler, his face ashen after such a tragic event, left the Tempelhof airfield at six o’clock in the evening, a group of slaters working there on a roof let out a shout: “Bravo, Adolf.” In their admiration they called him by his first name. Twice more they shouted their “Bravo, Adolf.” It was the first salute of the people on the return of the lover of justice. A few hours later, another “Bravo, Adolf,” was going to ring out, this one still more impressive than the bravo of the slaters; it was that of the highest authority of the Reich, old Marshal von Hindenburg. That same evening he had telegraphed the Führer from his Neudeck estate, “It appears from reports given me that you have crushed all the seditious intrigues and attempted treason. Thanks to your personal, energetic and courageous intervention, you have saved the German people from a grave peril. Let me express to you my profound gratitude and sincere esteem. Signed: von Hindenburg.” Freed of the threat of a fratricidal subversion, the army, too, at once fell in line unanimously behind the Chancellor. As soon as von Hindenburg’s message reached Berlin, the minister of national defense issued an order of the day to the Wehrmacht: The Führer has personally attacked and crushed the rebels and traitors with the decisiveness of a soldier and with exemplary courage. The Wehrmacht, as the only armed force of the nation as a whole, while remaining aloof from internal conflicts, will express to him its recognition of his devotion and fidelity. The Führer asks us to maintain cordial relations with the new SA. Aware that we serve a common ideal, we shall be happy to do so. The state of alert is lifted throughout the entire Reich. Signed: von Blomberg

And the SA? No single act of resistance or complicity would be noted anywhere in the entire Reich after June 30, 1934. For almost all the SA members, it was Hitler who counted, not the men shot. The latter had been six or seven dozen all told and were either coldly ambitious, like Schleicher, or else leftist adventurers like Röhm, as well as a few accomplices whose heads had been turned by their unwonted rise and who clamored for still more. “After all,” Gisevius would acknowledge, dealing them the unkindest cut of all, “it was only a matter there of a very tiny clique: group staff officers with their paid guards, a bunch of hoodlums such as are to be found anywhere there’s disorder or a row.”20 The bulk of the SA would not have let

THE BARNES REVIEW

63

themselves be led disastrously astray. The French ambassador, François-Poncet, Schleicher’s and Röhm’s old friend, would later write: “Even if Röhm and Schleicher had been able to carry out their plot, they would have failed.” Their revolt would have ended in a bloody massacre probably a hundred times more murderous than the brief repression of June 30. They had not even been able to act in good time. Gisevius would add: “The history of June 30 comes down to the choice of the opportune moment. Röhm fell because he let the favorable hour slip by. The Göring-Himmler team (and Hitler, of course) won because it acted at the proper time.” Karl Marx had said it a century earlier: “Neither nations nor women are spared when they are not on their guard.” Hitler had been on his guard. With black humor, Göring remarked: “They prepared a second revolution for the evening of June 30, but we made it instead—and against them.” Hitler was hardly more than awake the next morning, the first of July, 1934, when continuous cheering rose up from below the windows of the chancellery. Gisevius, who at that time was not yet secretly betraying the Nazi regime, was in the chancellery when Hitler drew near to the balcony. “On this occasion,” he later noted, “I had an unexpected opportunity to see Hitler up close. He was at the famous window and had just received the ovation of the people of Berlin who had come there in throngs.” He made a deep bow when Hitler passed in front of him, but he was consumed with fear. “Under the insistence of that caesar-like gaze, I almost wanted to crawl into a hole.”21 The caesar of the chancellery had shown guts and a sense of strategy, and the people massed in the street below cheering him, with a sure intuition of the danger and the successful outcome, had understood. By July 2, 1934, the whole of Germany was back on track. The SA and the army were reconciled. The political and social reunification of the Reich had been achieved in 1933. Now, at the beginning of July of 1934, military and ideological reunification were about to be realized. Pledges of loyalty to Hitler were coming from all sides. Even the high clergy sanctimoniously followed suit. Dr. Hjalmar H.G. Schacht himself found no grounds for reproach. No more than a few days after the executions he would calmly enter the Hitler government, now purged of Röhm’s presence. On July 13, 1934, speaking before the Reichstag, with the entire German nation glued to their radios, Hitler assumed full responsibility for his actions: The guilty paid a very heavy tribute: Nineteen superior officers of the SA and 31 SA commanders and members of the brown-shirt militia were shot; three SS commanders and civilians implicated in the plot suffered the same fate; 13 SA commanders and civilians lost their lives resisting arrest; three others committed suicide; five party members no longer belonging to the SA were also shot. Three SS men who had been guilty of mistreating prisoners were shot. If anybody blames me for not having referred the guilty to the regular courts, I can only reply: it was only by decimating them that order was restored in the rebel divisions.

64

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

I personally gave the order to shoot the guilty. I also gave orders to take a red-hot iron to the wound and burn to the flesh every abscess infecting our internal life and poisoning our relations with other countries. And I further gave the order to shoot down immediately any rebel who made the least attempt to resist arrest. In that hour I was responsible for the fate of the German nation, and I was thereby the supreme judge of the German people.

If there was still a saboteur remaining in the shadows, Hitler was bent on warning him that a fate like that of Schleicher’s and Röhm’s awaited him: “Any show of a plot, or complicity in a plot, will be smashed without any regard for rank or person.” Believing that Hitler was going to be overthrown, the warmongers abroad—notably French Council President Doumergue, the vindictive and authoritarian little old Provençal—rejoiced too soon. It was Doumergue who would be ousted from power, rejected by the French people that same year. While out of the tragedy of June 30, 1934 had come a stronger Germany, freed of all threat of internal subversion and with the army and the SA finally brought into mutual harmony. Politically, socially, militarily and ideologically, the Germans were now a united people. The following month, by casting tens of millions of votes in favor of Hitler for the third time, Germany was going to make known to the whole world that she was forming around her leader the most formidable unity the Reich had ever known. ❖ FOOTNOTES: 1 Andre Brissaud, Hitler et son temps, 197. 2 Benoist-Méchin, Histoire de l’Armee Allemande, Vol. III, 189. 3 Benoist-Méchin, op. cit., vol. III, 188f. 4 Account of the events of June 30 from The Manchester Guardian of the following August 9. 5 Benoist-Méchin, op. cit., vol. I, 192. 6 Cited by Benoist-Méchin, op. cit., vol. III, 192. 7 Benoist-Méchin, op. cit., 194. 8 Ibid. 9 Brissaud, op. cit., 201. 10 Ibid. 11 Churchill, L’orage approche [“The Storm Draws Near”], 100. 12 Benoist-Méchin, op. cit., vol. III, 197. 13 Ibid. 14 Churchill, op. cit., 100f. 15 Ibid. 16 Brissaud, op. cit., 210. 17 According to William Schirer, in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, the innocent man was Dr. Willi Schmid. The local SA leader was named Willi Schmidt. SA leader Willi Schmidt had in the meantime been arrested by another SS detachment and shot.—Ed. 18 Gisevius, op. cit., 196. 19 Ibid. 20 Gisevius, op. cit., vol. I, 132. 21 Gisevius, op. cit., 68.

Leon Degrelle was an individual of exceptional intellect, dedicated to Western Culture. He fought not only for his country (Belgium) but for the survival of Christian Europe, preventing the continent from being inundated by Stalin’s savage hordes. What Gen. Degrelle has to say, as an eyewitness to some of the key events in the history of the 20th century, is vastly important and has great relevance to the continuing struggle today for the survival of civilization as we know it.

profiles in history hat an inspiration it is, in these modern days of political correctness and sweet-talk diplomacy, to learn about Maj. Gen. William S. Graves, U.S. Army, West Point Class of 1889, in his soldierdiplomat role in Siberia at the end of World War I—truly a soldier of the old school. Gen. Graves, an unassuming man of high character, overcame near-impossible obstacles and hostile criticism in his faithful execution of a delicate mission in that remote and primitive part of the world, 8,000 miles from home and mostly on his own. President Woodrow Wilson, a highly intelligent man himself, was looking ahead to U.S. interests. His State Department Aide Memoire of July 17, 1918, constituted Graves’s official guidelines of U.S. policy to help stabilize that part of Russia. Graves became Commander, American Expeditionary Force, Siberia, with 9,000 troops, among ambitious “allies”—72,000 Japanese, 70,000 Czechs, 12,000 Poles, 4,200 Canadians, 4,000 Romanians, 4,000 Russian auxiliaries, 2,000 Italians, 1,600 Britishers and 760 Frenchmen. All “allies” were jockeying for advantages. President Wilson’s real motive in committing U.S. troops in this joint intervention on the other side of the world was two-fold, according to historians: (1) block the Bolsheviks from taking over Russia, and (2) block the Japanese from taking over Siberia and parts of Chinese-held territory. Wilson’s “cover” for this bold American move was “to steady any efforts by the Siberians at selfgovernment” without any U.S. interference in internal affairs. Non-interference, therefore, was the watchword for the American commander—and that is exactly what Graves had to face against his “allies” and, many times, his own State Department—no small job. Despite stinging rebukes and grossly unfair criticism from our own State Department and “allies,” Gen. Graves faithfully carried out his orders, “surrounded by ambitious commanders of many nationalities and confronted by a people made desperate (and) embittered by years of war.” Even so, he had the last word. Ten years later, he related his intriguing account of the whole mission in his book, America’s Siberian Adventure (Peter Smith, 1931), in meticulous detail—chapter and verse, date and, time, place and weather, who and what, every jot and tittle to lay out the full story in 377 pages. It is a modest narrative, without bitterness or blame, pains takingly precise and historic. Graves, though he didn’t mean it so, comes out the shining knight with the courage, dedication and character that enabled him to perform a great service for his country. It wasn’t easy. For nineteen months, he faced a challenge virtually every day, beginning the day he arrived at Vladivostok, Aug. 16, 1918. The Japanese, already well situated, had dreams of taking over Manchuria and parts of Siberia; and Russia’s disarray was a great advantage. Japanese General Kikuro Otani, as senior

W

“allied” commander and acting on “authority” from his emperor, had ordered U.S. troops to engage partisans nearby. Graves quickly rescinded that order and made it clear that U.S. forces were under his command, not Otani’s. This was a prime example showing that Graves was in charge of the American AEF Siberia and that he absolutely would not interfere in Russia’s internal affairs, according to orders in the Aide Memoire, that had been written by President Wilson himself. Nor would he be goaded into interfering. The “allies,” particularly the British and French, tried to get Graves to intervene on several occasions, but Graves was adamant in courteous refusals. When President Wilson was at the Paris Peace Conference, Secretary of War Newton D. Baker told him that British and French sources bitterly complained that Graves was “an obstinate, difficult and unacceptable commander because he wouldn’t deviate.” President Wilson smiled and answered, “I suppose it is the same old story, Baker men often get the reputation of being stubborn merely because they are everlastingly right.” Even Britain’s Prime Minister David Lloyd George complained to President Wilson that all conflict between U.S. and Russian troops emanated from Graves’s policies and that Graves should be removed. Wilson informed Lloyd George that Graves could not be the root of the difficulties because “Graves possesses an unprovocative character. Neither did the President waver when other critics and agitators moved in. After all, Graves was faithfully implementing Wilson’s bold policy to commit the American military to a foreign land in order to achieve political and diplomatic goals, not military victory. Graves, a role model of the soldier-diplomat, was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross “for especially meritorious service as executive assistant to the chief of staff and as commanding general of the American Expeditionary Force in Siberia.” Also, he was honored with high decorations by Japan, China, Italy and Czechoslovakia. William Sidney Graves was a Texan who turned into an American hero. He was born in Mount Calm on March 27, 1865, and grew up on an open range where he learned survival, responsibility and self-reliance—qualities he needed in his military-diplomatic career. After 39 years of distinguished service, Graves retired in 1928, his last assignment being governor of the Panama Canal Zone. His death on February 27, 1940, at age 75, generated sincere expressions of sympathy from the media, praise for his frank views on national matters and for his priceless accounting of the true story of America’s Siberian adventure. Graves, a handsome soldier, was perhaps the first of America’s real soldier-diplomats and, as such, became a role model in many respects. He kept the faith in the noble effort to block the imperial takeover in the Far East—and gave hope to the bewil❖ dered people of Siberia in their struggle for freedom.

Gen. William S. Graves & His Secret Mission to Russia

THE BARNES REVIEW

65

histoRy you may have missed Red China has launched a gigantic facelift of the world’s tallest Buddha statue, in Leshan, a city in southwest China’s Sichuan province. The renovation project is to cost an estimated 250 million yuan (about $30 million), including $2 million in World Bank loans. Repairs on the giant statue have been carried out on numerous occasions since ancient times. However, all the previous repair efforts were done by individuals and on a smaller scale. Since communist China was founded in 1949, thorough repair work on the statue has been conducted once every 10 years. The annual maintenance cost of the statue exceeds 2 million yuan, said Li Mingquan, director of the Leshan City Tourism Bureau. Over 100 people can sit on one foot of the Chinese Buddha statue. Carving of the Buddha began in A.D. 713 and was completed in 803, in the prosperous period of the Tang dynasty. It was started by a monk named Haitong, who organized fundraising and hired workers. Haitong hoped that the presence of the Great Buddha image would protect the boatmen who traversed the treacherous river by pacifying the swift currents. A building was built to protect the statue, but was destroyed during a Ming Dynasty war. The Buddha is 234 feet (10 stories) high, with shoulders that are 92 feet wide; the head is 48 feet high, while each of the ears is 23 feet long. Haitong gouged out his own eyes in an effort to protect funding from disappearing into the hands of officials, but he died before the completion of his life’s work. The seated Leshan statue is some 18 yards taller than was the standing Buddha statue at Bamian Valley, Afghanistan, destroyed by the Taliban and once thought to be the tallest of its kind in the world.

✠

✠

✠

Our understanding of the dinosaur world is still very incomplete, and many animals of those eras are known only from fragments of their skeletons. One “extreme dinosaur” has just come to our attention: Many years ago, enormous claws were discovered in 70-million-year-old (Cretaceous) deposits in Outer Mongolia. These were named Therizinosaurus (“scythe lizard”) and temporarily classified as belonging to an unknown, giant turtle. More recently, a forelimb was collected with identical claws, indicating that Therizinosaurus was a large dinosaur, probably of the theropod type. What did the animal look like? What was the function of the enormous claws? Some scientists believe this was a rare example of an herbivorous theropod and may have used its immense claws to pull down branches of trees to munch on, while others suggest these weapons may have served primarily to tear open the mounds of termites, which it would then have eaten. Our own theory is that the outsized claws

66

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

the amount of a few ex-presidential estates, measured in 2001 dollars, and nearly all of it accumulated while they were in office: John Kennedy: $54 million Franklin Roosevelt: $2.3 million Teddy Roosevelt: $8.7 million Harry Truman: $2.4 million Dwight Eisenhower: $13 million Lyndon Johnson: $39 million

✠

A Chinese man works near an ear of the Leshan Buddha during its restoration. might have been used in a dominance display of some sort. We will just have to wait until additional skeletal material is found associated with identifiable Therizinosaurus bones. Most thero pods, of course, are carnivores—the family in cludes such magnificent monsters as Allosaurus and Tyrannosaurus (“tyrant lizard”), and, in fact, these “lizard-hipped” dinosaurs were the only dinosaurs that were meat eaters. Quite possibly Therizinosaurus had feathers; the closely related Caudipteryx (“winged tail”) is known to have been covered with birdlike feathers (although it is not very much akin to birds). By the way, although it weighed a respectable seven tons, Tyrannosaurus is no longer the “rex” (“king”) of the dinosaurs; the recently discovered Gigantosaurus carolinii, from Argentina, weighed nine tons, dwarfing Tyrannosaurus, and lived 25 million years earlier. The sauropod Argentinosaurus, a neighbor and contemporary of Gigantosaurus, was perhaps the largest creature ever to walk the earth; it weighed up to 80-100 tons. Could Gigantosaurus have evolved to feed on such huge animals?

✠

✠

✠

We all know what a “ruling class” is. In our day, it is a self-perpetuating, insecure and very liberal clique of individuals marked largely by their moral, intellectual, constitutional, spiritual and emotional lack of authority to rule anyone or have influence over anything. Another thing that marks them is their immense and largely unearned wealth. World Features Syndicate, in the March 15 issue of The Arizona Republic, shows

✠

✠

Poor Albert. Not only was this inveterate fraud a plagiarizer, but, even what he plagiarized was wrong. An Irish physicist, Al Kelly, from Trinity College, Dublin, has disproved relativity theory though a fuller explication of the behavior of light. Time and space are absolute. Here is what a February 16 Boston Globe article on the subject said: “He [Kelly] said he discovered his theory by re-examining several well-known experiments. Some produced results that contradicted Einstein’s theories and were swept under the carpet by the scientific establishment as a result.” This is probably the last time any of our readers will ever hear of Al Kelly.

✠

✠

✠

Many of the animal rights characters have looked to ancient Egypt as a civilization that treated animals with proper “dignity.” One of the Egyptian gods was the crocodile god named Sobek, who helped give birth to Horus and to destroy Set. His cult was strong in places such as Crocodilopolis and other areas dependent upon water. He was “worshipped” to placate crocodiles in Egypt. Baby crocodiles were birthed from pools within the temple, quickly killed and then mummified. Many were sold to pilgrims. The temple was found on a dig in the Medinet El Fayum region by Edda Bresciani and dates to about the second century B.C.

✠

✠

✠

Issa Nakhleh’s edited volume, Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem, has this to say about the “Wailing Wall.” The alleged wall of Herod’s Temple is the subject of one of the greatest modern frauds perpetrated on the Jews and gentiles of the world. This wall known today as the Wailing Wall is not a part of the Temple built by King Solomon or of the Temple built by King Herod. It is a wall built by Muslim Arabs. This was the conclusion of the investigation carried out by a League of Nations Commission in 1929, confirmed by the mandatory power in a order in Council in 1931.

The findings say, among other things: To the Muslims belong the sole ownership of, and the sole proprietary right to, the Western Wall, seeing that it forms an integral part of the Haram-eshSherif area, which is Waqf property. To the Muslims also belongs the ownership of the pavement in front of the Wall and of the adjacent so-called Moghrabi (Moroccan) Quarter opposite the Wall, inasmuch as the last mentioned property was made Waqf under Muslim Sharia law.

Shadow Warriors BY JOHN TIFFANY

uddhism first entered Japan in the sixth century A.D., while Europe, except for Ireland and Byzantium, was in the deepest doldrums of the dark ages.1 It was a religion whose views of the world and mankind differed greatly from those of Shinto, the native Japanese religion. Buddhism regarded the physical world as transient and a source of suffering, while Shinto readily accepted the world. Buddhism, furthermore, had many things that Shinto lacked at that time—such as an elaborate body of doctrine, an enormous canon of literature and an impressive tradition of religious art and architecture.2 Not surprisingly, followers of Buddhism encountered a certain amount of persecution—extreme, at times—by the Japanese establishment. Especially difficult was the life of Buddhist peasants. Samurai—Japanese knights, the established aristocratic warrior class—could chop off one’s head for no particular reason if one were a mere commoner. Reportedly, samurai would sometimes kill passing peasants merely to test the edge of their blades. Also, peasants were not allowed to have weapons. Japan has had some form of “weapons control” laws since at least as early a time as the Taika (“Great Change”) Reforms of A.D. 645, when unauthorized weapons were confiscated. The samurai class was given a monopoly on the conduct of warfare. Naturally there were some peasants and Buddhist monks who fought back against the oppression and heavy taxation. But, not having any real weapons (for the most part), it became necessary for them to learn how to use ordinary farming implements and tools, and their bare hands, as weapons. (For these people, poison was a favorite means of doing away with one’s enemies, although some of them did have regular weapons such as swords, and even guns, mortars and hand grenades.) This led to the origin of the ninjas, or “shadow warriors.” (The art of the ninja is also known as ninpo or ninjitsu.) The first ninjas were influenced in part by refugee warriors, philosophers and military strategists from the fallen T’ang Dynasty in China, who had fled to Japan. Ninjas have additional historical roots in Mikkyo Buddhism, or Tendai, which is an esoteric form of the religion and is the Japanese version of T’ien T’ai, which arose in China in the 6th century.

B

The Sengoku era (approximately A.D. 1467-1568) marks a century of warfare in Japan, during the latter half of which the powerful warlords Oda Nobunaga (above), Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu struggled for dominance, sometimes allied together, sometimes opposed, until at last Tokugawa Ieyasu was named shogun in 1603, following his decisive victory at the Battle of Sekigahara, and Japan was united again. During this time, ninja raids, assassinations, reconnaissance missions and other military operations were recorded in semi-historical documents such as the Shinchoko-ki, a biography of Oda Nobunaga.

THE BARNES REVIEW

67

Tendai began when a Buddhist missionary named Saicho, or Dengyo Daishi, a student of the 10th patriarch of the T’ien T’ai school, brought his teachings to Mt. Hiei in Japan, where he founded a monastic center in about A.D. 788. Another influence was the rather mysterious acetic group of mountain-dwelling mystics known as the Shugenja, who exposed themselves to harsh weather to toughen themselves. It is said that the Shugenja would walk through fire, stand under freezing-cold waterfalls and hang over the edges of cliffs in order to overcome fear, and, as they believed, to assume the powers of nature. By no means were all ninjas monks, however. In fact, many ninja families seem to have had a civilian profession as a “cover” for their ninja activities. This is understandable, since there were many times when ninjas were hunted down and exterminated as outlaws. Many ninjas were simply peasants or members of the outcast “untouchables” of Japan, known as the eta-hinin (“polluted or dirty non-persons”), or, to use the more modern and less pejorative term for them,

Burakumin (“hamlet people”). These were the people who did the dirty work of Japan, those who handled dead bodies and the like, executioners, butchers, tanners and some others, and so were regarded by other Japanese as unclean. (The Buraku still exist today, numbering about 3 million people, and continue to suffer discrimination by their fellow Japanese citizens, although there is no racial difference.) In A.D. 794-1192 Japanese civilization flourished, and with it, a new class of wealthy, privileged families emerged. These families contended with one another in attempts to make or destroy emperors and shoguns. The need for spies, informants and assassins grew as these families contended for power. They were suspicious and jealous of one another and would resort to any means necessary to eliminate any possible threats to their wealth and status. Samurai could not fill these needs, since their codes of honor3 forbade such actions. This left a niche suitable for the ninjas to occupy. Peasants and eta, as members of despised classes, were viewed as having no honor to worry about, although no doubt they had their own ideas of what was honorable or not. For example, a letter written in the 16th century, apparently written by a famous ninja named Momochi Sandayu, who was active in the middle of that century, reflects a sense of honor. It states: Ninjitsu is not for your own selfish desires. It is for your country, your lord, and for when there is no other recourse when faced with physical danger. If you use it for your own selfish desires you will surely destroy the original, true, essential meaning of the art.

In this secreen painting, Oda Nobunaga and Tokugawa Ieyasu’s musket-bearing forces (left) stand against the sword-wielding forces of Nagashino in 1575. The introduction of firearms changed Japanese military tactics forever, although eventually such weapons were given up when Japan entered into the “golen age” of the Samurai.

68

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

It should also be mentioned that it was not unknown for samurai, recognizing the need for secrecy and deception in warfare, to “cross over” and become full- or part-time ninjas (Momochi Sandayu, for example, is best remembered as a samurai). Female ninjas, called kunoichi, made up an important part of the historical ninja families and clans of Japan. These female warriors were trained in ways of warfare that most appropriately capitalized on their own unique features and strengths. As for the famous “ninja uniform,” those black pajamas that provide no protection from weapons and advertise to the entire world what the wearer is, it makes little sense for an outfit such as this to be used in the real world, and indeed, they were not, except on rare occasions where the ninja needed to blend into the darkness of a moonless night. Instead, the ninja outfit as we know it is basically a product of the Japanese stage (kabuki). In reality, ninjas, when penetrating an enemy castle (one of their main uses), would dress in the uniforms of enemy guards. On other occasions, they would dress as ordinary farmers or other commoners, so as to pass unnoticed. The last thing any competent assassin or spy wants to do, of course, is to draw attention to himself. But in the conventions of kabuki theater, the black pajamas were the perfect costume. And to this day, in every ninja movie, no matter how authentic it may otherwise attempt to be (and of course, many Hollywood ninja movies do not even make the

attempt), the kabuki costume is used as an unquestioned and vital part of “ninja garb.” Sometimes ninjas would impersonate yamabushi, or wandering warrior monks, or masterless samurai, known as ronin, which meant not having to conceal weapons. Traveling acrobats and wandering musicians (toriai) were also disguises that were used. The short-handled sickle, or kaman, was a weapon that could be put to good use by ninja operatives. Since there was no “right to keep and bear arms” for the Japanese subjects and owning a military-style weapon was banned to all but samurai, a ninja walking around with a belt full of swords and shuriken (throwing stars) would stand out quite a bit. But the kaman was a common farming tool, and a ninja carrying such a weapon would not call attention to himself. It can also be attached to a chain and becomes a much more complicated and dangerous weapon then, with greater range and utility. (Ninja swords were often shorter than samurai swords. This made them easier to conceal, and also more useful in narrow corridors of castles that they infiltrated.) Ninja schools also taught the use of explosives. Other weapons known to have been used by the ninjas include the following: ashiko, bokken, fukiya, ko, kyoketsushogei, ono, tanto, tetsu-bishi, bo (staff), chigariki, hanbo, na ginata, jitte, neko-te, manriki-gusari, shobo, yari, poisontipped dart, hoko, kakute, kusari-gama, nunchakus, and tes sen. Conventional weapons such as long and short swords, large and small bows and arrows, and others were used. Ordinary objects could also be used as weapons. Even emptyhanded, of course, the ninjas were trained to be deadly. Ninja underground resistance forces battled for freedom and the lives of their children against oppressive military dictatorships that attempted to crush all opposition to their often cruelly maintained supremacy. Ninjas even set up a sort of “alternative society” in part of Japan, in the Mt. Hiei area. Here they also gave shelter, as refugees, to samurai who had served under warlords who had been defeated in battle by other warlords. Oda Nobunaga (1534-1582), a military leader who attempted to unify Japan, which at the time was divided into a large number of essentially independent principalities, decided that the ninjas, who were based in Iga and Koga provinces (corresponding to modern-day Mie province), were too dangerous to his plans and attempted to crush them in 1579 with an expedition to Iga. However, this failed disastrously, thanks to confusion tactics used by the ninja enemy. The invading army collapsed. Some killed each other by mistake, while others committed suicide. Many thousands are said to have died. A second expedition, in 1581, met with victory. A number of the ninjas made a “last stand” at a hill temple, dedicated, ironically, to the goddess of mercy, known in Japan as Kwannon and in China as Kwan-Yin. Aided by dry weather, the invading army set fire to the besieged temple. Nobunaga seems to have enjoyed temple massacres. He had carried out an earlier one in 1571. This famous action was his destruction of the Buddhist monastery and Tendai

Some Famous Ninjas . . . By the nature of their work, ninjas tended to be anonymous. However, the names of a number of them have come down to us. Among these are the following: Hattori Hanzo Masahige Born in 1541, in Iga, Hanzo was the leader of the warlord Tokugawa Ieyasu’s personal army of ninjas. Best remembered for his famous night raid on Udo Castle, Hanzo died in 1596. His ninjas numbered about 300 in all. They also served as guards in the Tokugawas’ castle in Edo. “Hanzo no Mon,” or “the Hanzo Gate,” which bears his name, still stands today at Edo Castle.

Kotaro Kazama Associated with the infiltration of enemy castles, Kotaro was known for his huge stature and ugly appearance. During the late 16th century Kotaro worked for the Hojo family. He is best remembered for his night raids against the warlord Takeda Katsuyori in 1580.

The Sada Brothers These three brothers who lived in the area of Iga were accomplished ninja and in old age instructed younger members in various aspects of ninjitsu. A story is told of how one of the Sada brothers dared any of his students to sneak into his home during the night and take the sword from beneath his pillow. That night one young ninja crept into Sada’s garden, intent on taking the sword. However, it was not long before he became aware he was being watched, so he quickly abandoned his mission and left. The next morning Sada approached and questioned the student who had infiltrated his property the night before. The student asked how Sada became aware of his presence. Sada informed him that all the crickets in the garden became silent, therefore implying an intruder. Sada then asked the student how he knew he was being watched. The student answered that he had been bitten by a mosquito. Sada did not understand, so the student reminded him that in order to leave his futon (mattress) to investigate, he would have lifted the insect net, to get out, thereby disturbing the mosquitoes resting on it.

temples (notably Enryaku-ji Temple) of Mt. Hiei, above Kyoto—a sprawling complex of over 3,000 buildings. Seeing Mt. Hiei and its militant Buddhists as a threat to future stability, or so he claimed, Nobunaga not only destroyed the complex, burning it to the ground, but hunted down every single Hiei monk and slaughtered them, regardless of their age or innocence. The surviving ninjas of the 1581 fighting, following their defeat, dispersed to all parts of Japan, legend has it. Nobunaga was an extraordinary man. Not only was he astonishingly ruthless and cruel, but he had a massive ego. He had a temple built wherein he was to be worshiped as a god, and declared his birthday to be a national holiday. Ironically for a man who burned temples, he met his Waterloo when he was trapped inside the burning Honnoji Temple after one of his officers, Akechi Mitsuhide, turned against

THE BARNES REVIEW

69

him. It is not known whether he burned to death or took the quicker way out by killing himself. But whereas Oda Nobunaga saw only a threat in the ninjas, Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu (1542-1616) saw an opportunity, and he soon had a group of Koga ninjas in his employ, allegedly as bodyguards, or anti-ninja ninjas. Since the ninjas were usually illegal, their history is very shadowy. Also, they were split into many schools and clans, making their story a complicated one. Of course, not all Japanese assassins or spies were necessarily true ninjas; for example, the Nichiren sect of Buddhism, originating in the 13th century, and represented today by the 15 million-member Soka Gakkai (called by some “the deniable face of the Japanese government”), has had its assassins. Then there is the rival “anti-Semitic” terrorist cult of Aum Shinrikyo (currently with about 2,000 followers), also with Nichiren roots. And of course, the Japanese crime syndicate known as the Yakuza, including the Yamaguchi-gumi, has its hit men. The last definitely known mission involving true ninjas took place in Shimabara in the very south of Japan, in 16371638. Christians living in the region rebelled against oppression. They sacked and burned Amakusa Castle, took refuge in the old Hara Castle and defeated every regular force sent to subdue them. A unit of ninjas disguised as peasants infiltrated the castle, successfully burning food supplies. When discovered, the ninjas made a dramatic escape, jumping off the top of the castle walls amid a hail of arrows and gunfire. Although folklore tells of various ninja societies continuing into the 19th and 20th centuries, most scholars doubt it, citing the lack of documentation. Yet it is hard to understand why the ninjas would simply disappear, although some specific families are known to have given up the ninja trade. It has been claimed that there was a group of ninjas used by the Japanese military during World War II, which was known as the “white ghosts.” The unit, it is rumored, was successful in combat but was lost because of cholera. Yukio Mishima, one of the most famous Japanese postwar writers, is widely believed to have been a ninja, but the fact that he committed hara-kiri4 argues against this. Today,

such individuals as Stephen K. Hayes and Ashida Kim (of the Black Dragon Fighting Society), both of whom are in America, and others, continue the ninja traditions. ❖ FOOTNOTES: 1Glimmers of light did come from a few other Europeans at this time, notably the Venerable Bede, Isidorus of Seville and Bishop Severus Sebokht of Mesopotamia. 2As time went on, many Japanese decided that there was no incompatibility between Shinto and Buddhism. Today most Japanese people practice both Buddhism (or, more rarely, Christianity) and a form of Shinto known as Shrine Shinto. 3(Known as bushido, or “the way of the warrior,” which succeeded the unwritten code of kyuba no michi or “the way of the bow and the horse,” during the reign of Shogun Yoritomo Minamoto in the late 12th century.) Many writers, following Nitobe Inazo, assume that bushido was a well-defined code of warrior behavior in premodern times which then became universal—“the soul of Japan”—among prewar Japanese. However, rather than a single normative code of behavior for the warrior class, there were many formulations of behavioral norms for warriors in medieval and early modern Japan. It may be noted that bushido, since it called for unquestioning loyalty to one’s superior, could result, and sometimes did result, unfortunately, in a samurai faithfully carrying out the wrongful orders of a corrupt superior. It could also mean committing suicide—which eliminated some of Japan’s best individuals, who, from a eugenic standpoint, should instead have been encouraged to have more children. Yamaga Soko, a Japanese Confucian scholar who wrote a 1665 work called Seikyo yoroku (“Essential Teachings of the Sages”), has been credited with being the early-modern formulator of the doctrine of bushido. 4Ritualistic suicide is characteristic of the samurai and their bushido code, rather than of the ninjas, who valued survival over any code of honor. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Books: Hayes, Stephen K., The Ancient Art of Ninja Warfare: Combat, Espionage and Traditions, Contemporary Books, Chicago, 1988. Henshall, Kenneth G., A History of Japan: From Stone Age to Superpower, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1999. Leonard, Jonathan Norton, Early Japan, Time-Life Books, New York, 1968. Mass, Jeffrey P. (editor), The Origins of Japan’s Medieval World: Courtiers, Clerics, Warriors and Peasants in the Fourteenth Century, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1997. Nosco, Peter (editor), Confucianism and Tokugawa Culture, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1997 (copyright 1984). Schomp, Virginia, Japan in the Days of the Samurai, Benchmark Books, New York, 2002. Tsai Chih Chung, Confucius Speaks: Words to Live by, Doubleday, New York, 1996. Turnbull, Stephen, The Lone Samurai and the Martial Arts, Arms and Armour Press, London, New York, 1990. Website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A575642

CORRECTIONS & COMMENTS FROM THE EDITOR In the May/June 2001 TBR, the first item on page 60, “History You May Have Missed,” reported the confiscation of all copies of catalogs and the book Tragedy East-Prussia by Heinz Schoen. This report was based on information from one of our readers, which we believed to be reliable. The publisher, ARNDT-Verlag in Kiel, Germany, has sent us this information by way of another of our readers: There have been no court proceedings and no confiscations against the book Tragedy East-Prussia. The publisher therefore had no cause to request a hearing, and the alleged answer of a judge is pure fiction. It is correct, however, that in December 2000 the catalog of the Lesen und Schenken Ltd., which also distributes the publications of ARNDT-Verlag, was put on the list of forbidden books by the “federal agency for writings dangerous to the young.” Among about 1,000 books, videos and audio items was the

70

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

book Tragedy East-Prussia. In January, I was able, together with my attorney, to have the control commission retract their ruling. In December 2000 we had brought a court action for damages against the decision of the control agency before the administration court in Cologne. But since in the meantime the control agency had taken the catalog off the list of forbidden books and assured payment of the costs, no judgment was passed, and the case was closed.

THE BARNES REVIEW regrets any inconvenience that may have resulted from our apparent error. Also, an error occurred in the photo caption on p. 15 of the March/ April 2002 TBR, referring to a maize motif on one of the columns. Rossyln Chapel was built in 1446, not the 12th century, as listed. That was still 46 years before Columbus sailed to the Americas. The maize motifs found there indicate a knowledge of America before 1492.

The Triumph of Christianity in the

Third Reich BY MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN

When the allied military war against Germany and other dollar-independent nations ended in 1945, the destruction of their fallen peoples and other Europeans continued by other means. As always it was accompanied by crude propaganda. This continues unabated today as the allies, marching to Israel’s batonwielding lobby, decimate the European peoples through race-mixing, abortion, the promotion of same gender sex, and the systematic destruction of their race pride and their sense of history. What follows is a compendium of quotes concerning Christianity in the Third Reich. t was against monstrous genocide that the Austrianborn leader of scores of millions within and beyond Germany railed. It was due to his love not only for his own German people but for European civilization as a whole that Adolf Hitler opined: “As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilizations of the ancient world some two thousand years ago—a civilization which was driven to its ruin through the same Jewish people.” An important plank in the present day one-sided war of propaganda is the depiction of National Socialism as being anti-Christian and it being of an “occult” nature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Adolf Hitler was of course scathing of what Christianity had become then and still is today. He observed: “It is a tragedy of the Germanic world that Jesus has been judaized, distorted, falsified; and an alien Asiatic spirit was forced upon us. That is a crime we must repair.”

I

Nazi Germany: A Christian State But to the true ideals of Christianity, not to be confused with the current travesty of it, Nazi Germany was arguably the most Christian nation in European history. Germany in the 1930s was a Christian nation of which more than 46 million belong to the German Evangelical (Protestant) Church and thirty million to the Roman Catholic faith.

Above, a communist artist’s idea of what Christmas was like in National Socialist Germany—a dying, swastika-shaped conifer. A Revisionist look at the topic finds no truth to the idea that Christianity suffered under the Third Reich.

THE BARNES REVIEW

71

Adolf Hitler was always acutely aware of his nation’s deep rooted spiritual beliefs and in Mein Kampf wrote, “Our task is to harness the God-given energy of this German nation to stand firm for the Truth.” Born on April 20, 1889, in Braunau (on the River Inn), an idyllic rural village near the German-Austrian frontier, he was the third son of Alois and Klara Hitler. He was baptized in the local church. In his major work, Mein Kampf, the Holy Bible is quoted no less than five hundred times. His own profound belief in the Almighty’s resistance against Jewish power is summed up by his statement: “I would like here to appeal to a greater than I, Count Lerchenfeld. He said in the last session of the Landtag that his feeling ‘as a man and a Christian prevented him from being an anti-Semite.’ “I say: my feelings as a Christian point me to the Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to a man who once in loneliness, surrounded only be a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. “In boundless love as a Christian and a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in his might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight for the world against the Jewish poison. “Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.” Within a year of his election, in January 1934, during his New Year’s message to the German people, their increasingly popular national leader said: “. . . we have not only brought thousands of priests back into the Church, but to millions of respectable people we have restored their faith in their religion and in their priests.”

Official German Government Policy “The German Government, which regards Christianity as the unshakeable foundation of the ethical life of the German nation, attaches the greatest importance to the maintenance and development of friendly relations with the Holy See. . . . “The national government regards the two Christian confessions as the most important factors of the maintenance of our ethical personality. “The Party as such advocates a positive Christianity without binding itself to any particular church.” (24th Point, Government’s Program.) “The Government will adopt a just and objective attitude towards all other religions.”

Critics Rounded Up “Amongst the accusations directed against Germany in the so-called democracies is the charge that the National Social ist state is hostile to religion. In answer to that charge I want to make before the German people the solemn declaration:

72

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

1. “No one in Germany has in the past been persecuted because of his religious views, nor will anyone in the future be so persecuted. 2. “The National Socialist State since January 30, 1933, from public moneys derived from taxation through the organs of the State, has placed at the disposal of both Churches the following sums” (1,800,000,000 Reichsmark). Hitler went on to detail the enormous riches pouring into the German Churches making them by far the most prosperous in Europe, and pointed out that in separating the Church from the State he was only following the lead of France, America and other countries. 3. “The National Socialist State has not closed a church, nor has it prevented the holding of a religious service, nor has it ever exercised any influence upon the form of a religious service. . . .”

God Be Thanked “In this hour I pray that the Almighty will give His blessing in the years to come to our labors, to our judgment and to our strength of resolution, that He may guard us from all false pride as from all cowardly submission, that He will let us find the right path, which He in his Providence has allotted to the German people, and that He gives us always the courage to do right and never to waver or weaken before any force or danger.” —5th Anniversary of the National Socialist government.

Rudolf Hess: Deputy Führer “He countered atheistic blasphemy with the idea of an Almighty Being.” Rudolf Hess spoke for his nation when he said: “Was it an accident that Hitler came? I do not think so. I believe that a Providence watches over the nations and that when a task is to be fulfilled in the world, this Providence sends the right man at the right time to fulfill and thus save the nation from downfall.” In respect for those not sharing Christian beliefs he was equally forthright. “No National Socialist shall be allowed to suffer because he does not subscribe to a certain religion or because he subscribes to no religion at all. Belief is a matter for each one to resolve in the light of his own conscience. Compulsion must not be exercised.” He added, “National Socialism would have every German decide for himself on spiritual questions, just as in the days of Frederick the Great. The National Socialist state gives to the church what belongs to the church, and to the state what belongs to the state.” How interesting and observant of him that on 21 May 1935 Adolf Hitler could say: “. . . we never want to see a lack of religion and faith and do not want our churches turned into clubrooms and cinemas.” Does that not precisely sum up the most casual tour of any locality in England and Europe today? We even see former churches turned into cash and carry wholesalers of which the proprietors are Jewish or Muslim. Other churches have been turned into mosques!

More Anti-German, Communist Propaganda . . . Above are two of the many anti-Nazi works of communist designer John Heartfield. Heartfield continued his brazen propaganda efforts until the Communist Party was banned after Adolf Hitler became chancellor. The poster on the left had a caption (not shown) that read: “The Bishop of the Reich Inspects the Christian Ranks,” implying that Christian leaders had better toe the National Socialist line if they wanted to remain in their positions. The poster on the right had a caption (not pictured) that read: “The Cross Wasn’t Heavy Enough.” A Nazi Party member adds additional boards to Christ’s cross to form a swastika. According to historian Michael McLaughlin, propaganda like this, though effective, was far from truthful regarding the National Socialist stance on Christianity.

The Deputy German Leader

Of the Priesthood

Rudolf Hess: “The Protestant world is still under Ger man leadership. There is no foundation for the fear, voiced abroad, that Germany will forsake the Protestant world. The Protestant may remain Protestant and the Catholic Catholic, and he who is neither and nevertheless owns Christ, may also remain what he is.” Hanns Kerrl, German Minister for German Affairs agreed: “Adolf Hitler gave us back our faith. He showed us the true meaning of religion. He has come to renew for us the faith of our fathers and to make us new and better beings . . . just as Jesus Christ made his twelve apostles into a faithful band to the martyr’s death whose faith shook the Roman Empire, so now we witness the same spectacle again. Adolf Hitler is the true Holy Ghost.” And the German Faith Movement added, “I believe in the Holy German people inside and outside the German frontiers. I believe in Adolf Hitler, who by the grace of God was sent to give the German people faith in themselves once more.”

Of the priesthood at Koblenz on August 26th, 1934, Adolf Hitler was unstinting in his support. “I know there are thousands and tens of thousands of priests who are not merely reconciled to the State today but who gladly give to the State their co-operation, and I am convinced that this co-operation will grow ever closer and more intimate. For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world today, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. “These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles! And I believe that if we should fail to follow these principles, then we should not be able to point to our successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not unblest by God.”

THE BARNES REVIEW

73

And of False Prophets The German leader however was not blind to the infamy of the charlatan priesthood and was aware that some priests subverted their religious calling by diverting their teaching from spiritual need to political and social statements: “Undoubtedly there have always been unscrupulous rogues who did not hesitate to degrade religion to the base use of politics. Nearly always such people had nothing else in their minds except to make a business of religion and politics. But on the other hand it would be wrong to hold religion itself, or a religious denomination, responsible for a number of rascals who exploit the Church for their own base interests just as they would exploit anything else in which they had a part.” In Mein Kampf he wrote with clarity: “. . . it would be wrong to make religion, or the Church as such, responsible for the misdeeds of individuals. . . but for each of these unworthy specimens we can find a thousand or more who fulfil their mission nobly as the trustworthy guardians of souls and who tower above the level of the corrupt epoch, as little islands above the sea-swamp.”

before any danger.” His enemies never missed an opportunity in their attempts to undermine his authority, his popularity, and the Führer’s undoubted ability to win the hearts of true Christians throughout the Aryan diaspora. His response as always was Christian and spirited. In Stuttgart on the 15th of February, shortly after his electoral victory, in a barbed attack against the pro-Marxist Catholic Centre Party (Centrum) he said: “And now Staatsprasident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us. And to that charge I can answer: In the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity. If many wish today to take threatened Christianity under their protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these fourteen years when they went arm in arm with atheism . . . sat with those who denied God in one and the same Government?” —Stuttgart, 15 February 1933.

God Never Abandoned Any Man The Church’s First Duty Hitler’s endorsement of the teaching of Christ often brought him into conflict with the Church. His main charge against the Church’s influential hijackers was summed up by his surmising that they had “sinned against the likeness of the Lord in ignoring race and the purity of the blood of the nation. Instead of plaguing Hottentots and Kaffirs with missions which they neither desire nor understand, the Churches have a work to do at home to save their own people from a bodily and moral leprosy.”

Typical Pronouncements by Adolf Hitler “The Aryan stands firm, one with God in his attitude to the world and its people.” “We wish to fill our culture once more with the spirit of Christianity—but not only in theory.” “And so I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew, I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.” “To a political leader the religious teachings and practices of his people should be sacred and inviolable. Otherwise he should not be a statesman but a reformer, if he has the necessary qualifications for such a mission. Any other line of conduct will lead to disaster, especially in Germany.” “It is a tragedy of the Germanic world that Jesus was judaised, distorted, falsified; and an alien Asiatic spirit was forced upon us. That is a crime we must repair.” “In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come He would give His blessing to our work and our action, to our judgment and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that He may grant to us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence,

74

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

“When folk have set before them a true purpose and then pursue it unmoved with bravery and courage, when they withstand with a strong heart every trial which Heaven sends upon them, then one day at the last Almighty Providence will yet grant them the fruits of their struggle and of their sacrifices. For God has never abandoned any man upon this earth unless he has first abandoned himself.” In a lesson that might be applied to Northern Ireland’s misguided Christians, the Führer had a simple message: Convinced that the common struggle being waged against the common destroyer of Aryan humanity, he called for Catholic and Protestant mutual respect and mutual esteem. “In the ranks of our Movement the most loyal Catholic must be able to sit side by side with the most loyal Protestant without either of them having to suffer the smallest conflict of conscience with his religious convictions.” Of interfaith rivalry the Führer deplored the confessions for their looking on unconcerned at the desecration and destruction of a noble and unique creature—Aryan man—which by God’s grace had been given to earth. He added “For the future of the earth it is of no significance whether the Protestants conquer the Catholics or the Catholics the Protestants: the only significance consists in the question whether Aryan man is preserved or whether he dies out. And yet both Churches today do not fight against the destroyer of Aryan man but mutually seek to annihilate each other.”

With God’s Help “If Providence had not guided us I would often never have found these dizzy paths. Thus it is that we National Socialists have in the depths of our hearts our faith. No man can fashion world history or the history of peoples unless upon his purpose and his powers there rests the blessing of this Providence.” “I believe that this was God’s Will—to send a boy into the

Even Germany’s enemies admitted that the National Socialist regime brought a welcome prosperity to Germany. Above, the Kaiser Wilhelm (Protestant) Church, in Berlin, accented by automobiles, trams and shoppers depicts ordinary life between the world wars. Th Nazi regime knew that religion was a stabilizing force and would do nothing to weaken it. Communist and left-leaning church leaders did all they could to stir sedition against the regime, in spite of the military threat from the east. Today, only the shattered west tower of the church remains standing as a memorial of World War II. It is one of the few buildings that was not totally destroyed during the British-led and American bombing raids lasting for six months from late 1943 until mid-1944.

Reich, to let him become its Leader, in order to bring his home country into the Reich. Otherwise one must doubt Providence.” “Help thyself, then thou wilt also have the help of the Almighty.”

Christian Charity During the Winter Help Campaign during October 1937, the German Leader was demonstrative in his tireless campaigning for the have-nots: “This Winter Help Work is also in the deepest sense a Christian work. When I see, as I so often do, poorly clad girls collecting with such infinite patience in order to care for those who are suffering from the cold while they themselves are shivering with cold, then I have the feeling that they are all Apostles of a Christianity—and in truth of a Christianity which can say with greater right than any other: This is the Christianity of an honest confession (church), for behind it stand not words but deeds.”

National Socialism Anti-Cult Only on the matter of cultish beliefs was the Führer less

than complimentary. At Nuremberg, on 6 September 1938, he made his views absolutely clear: “National Socialism is a cool-headed doctrine of realities; it mirrors clearly scientific knowledge and its expression in thought. Since we have won the heart of our people for this doctrine we do not wish to fill their minds with a mysticism which lies outside of that doctrine’s goal and purpose. “National Socialism is not a cult-movement—a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkish’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship. Therefore we have no rooms for worship but only halls for the people—no open spaces for worship but spaces for assemblies and parades. We have no religious retreats, but arenas for sports and playing-fields, and the characteristic feature of our places of assembly is not the mystical gloom of a cathedral but the brightness and light of a room or hall which combines beauty with fitness for its purpose. “In these halls no acts of worship are celebrated, they are exclusively devoted to gatherings of the people of the kind

THE BARNES REVIEW

75

which we have come to know in the course of our long struggle.” In a clear and unambiguous warning to cultists who then as now tried to hijack the National Socialist movement, the Führer was pointed in his response: “We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists but something else—in any case something which has nothing to do with us. . . . Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men: it is to these we pay our respect.”

Typical Opinions Voiced by Foreigners “Adolf Hitler always declared, ‘First I believe in Almighty God. And, I solemnly declare that Almighty God has chosen me for this task.’” —James Larratt Battersby, German World Church in Europe. “Catholic and Protestant, Prussian and Bavarian, employer and workman, rich and poor, have been consolidated in-

to one people. Religious, provincial and class origins no longer divide the nation. There is a passion for unity born of dire necessity.” —David Lloyd George. “The tolerance shown towards the agnostic and antiChristian confessions is also extended to Jewish religious activities in Germany. I have already attempted to make it quite clear that the special treatment meted out to Jews in Germany is inspired solely by racial and not by religious motives. The Jews enjoy full liberty in the exercise of the ritual.” —Cesare Santoro, Hitler’s Germany Seen by a Foreigner. “At last the German Christians feel that the Almighty has done something. If only the immense spiritual forces in the new Germany can be harnessed in the service of Christianity, the new mission of which the Germans are profoundly conscious will be a Christian one. “This is what I learned from my Jewish friends, who are staying in Germany and have no intention of leaving the country, nor have they ever been asked to leave the country. Those who wish to leave and return may do so at their own pleasure. The laws relating to the freedom of Jews are substantially the

SP E C I A L M U LT I P L E - B OO K P RI C E D I S C O U N T FROM THE BARNES REVIEW BOOK CLUB

The Gestapo Chief Series Never-before-revealed secrets of U.S. intelligence asset, former Gestapo Chief Heinrich Müller. By Gregory Douglas. Gestapo Chief, Volume I — Contains information on Churchill’s cold-blooded assassinations of Admiral Darlan and Polish Chief of State Sikorsky; the text of secret trans-atlantic conversations of FDR and Churchill regarding their foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor; and more. Item #5, hardback, 287 pages, $35.95. Gestapo Chief, Volume II — The candid details of: Stalin’s plans to kill FDR; lists of communist moles in the U.S. government including three cabinet secretaries; the truth about why Hess flew to England and his brutal treatment by the British; the communist murder of Mussolini and more. Item #6, hardback, 288 pages, $35.95.

DOUGLAS

Gestapo Chief, Volume III — This volume covers the interrogations of Gestapo Chief Heinrich Müller. It is a must for those who have purchased the first two books to complete the trilogy. Recently discovered documents prove that Müller was working for U.S. intelligence. Read of Stalin’s purges as well as details of Swiss bank accounts looted by the CIA. A mind-boggling tour de force. Item #71, hardback, 286 pages, $35.95.

THE AUTHOR’S LATEST GESTAPO CHIEF BOOK: Gestapo Chief Heinrich Müller’s Journals, Vol. I —Journal entries in Müller’s diaries were the source of this new book. Gregory Douglas has been doing yeoman’s work compiling this information. Although devoted mostly to Müller’s private affairs, it should put to rest the doubts of those who have not recognized the important part he played after the war in Washington, D.C., knowing where the bodies were buried. Brought to the U.S. by the CIA after the war, he ostensibly worked for Army intelligence. A controversial man, government sources will not admit that he even lived in the United States. He died in 1983. #168, hardback, 271 pages, $35.95.

SPECIAL DISCOUNT PRICE! Special Gestapo Chief combo offer: Buy any one book for $35.95. Any two books for $60. Any three books for $90. BEST DEAL: All four for just $110—you save $30. TBR subscribers can take a further 10% off, increasing savings even more. Inside the U.S. add $3 per book for S&H. Outside the U.S. add $6 per book for S&H. Send payment to TBR Books, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Washington, D.C. 20003 or call 1-877-773-9077 toll free and charge to Visa or MC.

76

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

same as those of other people.” —H. Powys-Greenwood, Hitler’s First Year.

Adolf Hitler: Christian Crusader?

“As far as I am aware there is not a single incident in which the so-called anti-Christian Nazis murdered a single priest.” —Dr. Austin J. App, historian, University of Philadelphia.

Jewish Opinion of Religion in the Third Reich “. . . in that the Third Reich treated Christianized Jews preferentially. The National Socialist Third Reich carefully distinguished between Talmudic and Christianized Jews.” —Philip Freedman, Their Brothers Keepers, N.Y., 1957.

American Double Standard “The United States took exception to a German law on March 30, 1938, which removed the Jewish church from the established German church roll which deprived it of state funds. In fact, this brought German law into line with English law.” — Daniel L. Hoggan, Historical Revisionist.

Illustrative Last Will & Testaments Joseph Goebbels: “Do not let yourself be confused by the uproar that will now reign throughout the world. The lies will one day break down under their own weight and the truth will again triumph. The hour will come when we shall stand pure and undefiled as our aims and beliefs have always been.” —Joseph Goebbels, last letter to his stepson. Magda Goebbels: “Therefore, I have also brought the children here with me. They are too precious for the life that will come after us; a merciful God will understand me when I myself help them to a merciful deliverance.” —Madga Goebbels’ final letter to her son. Rudolf Hess: “Whatever the verdict of this court I shall be held innocent before the Judgment Seat of Christ.” Alfred Rosenberg: “Crimes against Christianity? Did you ever pay any attention to the Russian crimes against Christianity? The Russians have the nerve to sit in judgment, with thirty million lives on their conscience? Why? They are the world’s experts. They killed priests by the thousands during their revolution.” Field Marshal Keitel: “I call on the Almighty. May He have mercy on the German people and show them tenderness.” Adolf Hitler: “National Socialism is essentially a religious movement and faith. The Germanic or Aryan world of ideas, both political and religious will go out as a sacred Gospel to heal mankind.” —Adolf Hitler, Last Will and Testament. ❖ Michael McLaughlin is an independent business consultant. Although well traveled, he has spent most of his life in or around Merseyside, northwest England and Wales.

Above, Adolf Hitler as portrayed by artist Hubert Lanzinger in a 1930s painting entitled “The Flag Bearer.” Here, Hitler is depicted as a knight in silver armor, harking back to the days of the Middle Ages. Knights of that era were unanimously Christians and it is doubtful Hitler would have approved of the imagery had he disapproved of Christianity. To many, this painting implied that Hitler was a Christian crusader, ready to defend the Reich against heathen invaders, as did the medieval Crusaders. And that is exactly what he did, fighting until the bitter end to destroy that singularly antiChristian movement known as Bolshevism.

THE BARNES REVIEW

77

5 for $25! 5 SELECTED BACK ISSUES OF TBR FOR ONLY $25! THAT’S A HUGE SAVINGS OFF THE REGULAR SINGLE ISSUE PRICE! HERE’S AN UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY for new and old TBR subscribers to acquire selected back issues of TBR in a special discount package. At $5 an issue, you can afford to fill in the holes in your collection or give these copies away to people who need the information that comes only in the pages of a unique history magazine like THE BARNES REVIEW. HERE ARE THE 5 BACK ISSUES THAT YOU’LL RECEIVE AS A PART OF THIS SPECIAL PACKAGE . . . June 1996—36pages. Hannibal—even today his name congers up visions of courageous, armored warriors and elephants struggling across the wind-swept Alps. And now, here’s the story of the brilliant Carthaginian general who almost defeated Rome in the Second Punic War. His feats have been studied by military students and strategists for centuries. This exploration of the tactics and the man will enlighten the curious about this legendary yet dimly understood general and his world-shaping era. Other stories in this issue include: Money Systems of the World: How We Got Where We Are; The Danube Swabians: Southeastern Europe’s Forgotten Holocaust Victims; George Patton & “Black Jack” Pershing on the Trail of the Elusive Pancho Villa; The Amazing Eight-Man Invasion of Japan by the USS Barb; Where Were the Japanese Subs in World War II?; Hitler’s Social Revolution as Zeen Through the Eyes of heroic Belgian Waffen SS Gen. Leon Degrelle; More. May/June 2000—72 pages. Hiroshima—Did Harry Truman need to drop the bomb or was it an unnecessary assault on a beaten foe? Here is the great Harry Elmer Barnes himself on the topic. Is it true that Japan offered to surrender six months before the atom bombing? Find out from the the father of historical Revisionism. Other stories in this issue include: Monetary Policies and the Decline of Rome; The Terrible Mistake That Was World War One; The Experiences of a Jew in Nazi Germany; How Woodrow Wilson’s Interventionism Helped Exacerbate WWII, the Rise of Hitler and the Cold War; British Propaganda Networks in the U.S. Between the Wars; Stalin’s Bloody Purge of the Red Army; Holocaust Educa tion Foisted on U.S. School Kids; Doc Holliday; More.

July/August 2000—72 pages. China’s Ancient White Ancestors: Who were these mysterious red-bearded whites, speaking a Keltic derivative language, and living in Western China? Did they give China weaving technology, chariotry and other advanced technology? How did they weave their complex cloth, identical to Scottish tartans? What was found in their graves? This article discusses one of the great mysteries of ancient China. Other stories in this issue include: Andrew Johnson: Beleaguered, Forgotten Voice of Reason; The Secret Legs of FDR: Wild Bill Donovan’s Office of Strategic Services; Rescuing Medievalism; The Survival of Historic Germany; The Truth About Hitler’s War Record; Communist Terror Results in Retribution; A Judicial Lynching—The Priebke Case; The Martyrdom of Czar Nicholas II; The Hapless Plight of the Boers in the War Against Britain; A History of the Anglo-Afrikaners; Millions Held After WWII for Slave Labor; Degrelle on the Effects of Germany’s “Burial at the League of Nations”; Much more. January/’February 2001—ALL HOLOCAUST ISSUE— How much were inmates pad at the “concentration” camps? Why did each camp design and print money for inmates to use in the camp canteens and stores? Were the camps really just killing centers for Jews? Were there any homocidal gas chambers at all? Was Anne Frank’s Diary a fraud? Why was there a simming pool for inmates at Auschwitz? What does the real evidence say? Normally, there’s only one side you’ll hear, and that’s from the likes of Holocaust promoters Deborah Lipstadt and Daniel Goldhagen, to name a few, who are more concerned about maintaining the Holocaust myths than

exposing the truth. The Holocaust has become the most important “undiscussed” topic in America today. Falsified Holocaust teachings have become prerequisites in our school system. A trip to the Holocaust Museum propaganda center is standard fare for every tourist who enters Washington, D.C. Yet only TBR has the fortitude and facts to dedicate an entire issue—76 pages—to this emotionally charged and manipulated historical event. Arm yourself with the facts contained in this incredible issue. Perfect for school kids and teachers who have been made fearul by the thought police of talking openly about this important period of world history. July/August 2001—Who was Rudolf Hess and why did he fly to England? Was he on a secret mission from Hitler to work for peace? Why was he imprisoned and held in solitary confinement by the English until his death decades later? Was Hess murdered, or did the 93-yearold man really hoist himself up to the ceiling to commit suicide? Was it really Hess at all? Find out in this fascinating issue. Other stories in this issue include: A Speech from Hess to the Frontline Fighters of WWI; America’s Centennial Election Mirrors Bush-Gore Battle of 2000; The Stunning Success of the German Forces at Fort Eben-Emael; The Sexual Revolution as a Weapon of Social Control; The Saga of the Captain and Crew of the USS Indianapolis in Shark-Infested Waters; SlaveOwning Blacks of the Ante-Bellum South; the Incredible Story of the Blockade Runners of the Confederacy; Gen. Leon Degrelle’s War Memoirs: Paris, 1934; The JudeoChristian Heritage Hoax; What Ever Happened to John Roy Carlson?; How the Defense Department Lost Vietnam; Much more.

TO ORDER THIS COMPLETE FIVE-ISSUE SET: Send payment to THE BARNES REVIEW, P.O. Box 15977, Washington, D.C. 20003 or, for faster ordering, call our orders-only hotline at 1-877-773-9077 and charge to Visa or MasterCard. $25 for the complete set. Please add $5 S&H per set if mailed inside the U.S; $10 S&H per set if mailed outside the U.S.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Error Noted TBR erred: In 1808 Jefferson not Adams was president and Madison not Marshall was secretary of state. When Madison took office as president in 1809, he appointed Robert Smith as secretary of state. In 1811 Smith was succeeded in that office by James Monroe. VERNON MCREE DE VALLS BLUFF, ARKANSAS [John Marshall was appointed secretary of war by President John Adams on May 7, 1800, but the appointment was not considered, and on May 12, 1800, he was appointed secretary of state; he entered upon his new duties June 6, 1800, and was subsequently appointed chief justice of the United States on January 20, 1801. He took the oath of office as chief justice on February 4, 1801, but he continued to serve in the cabinet until March 4, 1801. He continued as chief justice until his death in Philadelphia, on July 6, 1835.—Ed.]

In Defense of Marshall Richard C. Bentinck does a tremendous disservice to the memory, talent and character of the remarkable John Marshall in his article entitled, “The U.S. Supreme Court’s Role in the Death of the Constitution.” The author, inter alia, claims that Marshall wasn’t “noted for his legal skills.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Marshall, one of Virginia’s finest sons, was renowned for his court room advocacy, especially before the highest tribunal in his home state. Beginning with the celebrated and complex land title case of Hines v. Fairfax, in 1786, he argued before Virginia’s Court of Appeals, 125 cases, in which “he won 67, lost 56, and two decisions were divided.” Mr. Bentinck states that Marshall only formal education was “attendance at some lectures on law for a few months.” He is mistaken again. In 1772, Marshall, then “captain marshal” in the Revolutionary Army, enrolled in a class on the “Common Law,” taught by Prof. George Wythe at the College of William and Mary. Wythe, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was one of the Virginia’s top legal experts. Marshall also participated in the moot courts and moot legislatures while at the college. The curriculum was “wide ranging.” Before entering the army, Marshall had read law in the office of an “attorney in Warrenton” not far from his home in Oak Hill. While in the Army, Marshall, a member of the famed Virginia Line, fought gallantly against the British imperialists at Great Bridge, Brandywine, and Germantown. He also spent that horrific winter at Valley Forge, with General George Washington, with whom he would forge a friendship lasting a lifetime. In

fact, it was Marshall, who was entrusted by Washington’s heirs, to write a five-volume biography of our nation’s first chief magistrate, entitled, The Life of Washington. Mr. Bentinck castigates Marshall for “setting the course of government toward tyranny,” by his decision in the landmark case of McCulloch vs. Maryland. He says that, when Marshall read into the Constitution that the federal government had an “implied power” to charter a national bank, the jurist was engaging in Orwellian “doublespeak.” I disagree. It’s true that Chief Justice Marshall was a Federalist, like Washington and Hamilton, but he was also a political moderate, who believed in a strong national government. He said the Constitution, “sanctioned by the will of the people, was the rock of our political salvation.” In fact, his celebrated opinion in McCulloch is a ringing endorsement of republican principles that trace their origins back to the ancient Rome Republic. It should be memorized by every American. Marshall wrote: “The government of the Union . . . is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form and substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefits.” The precedent set in McCulloch was followed by Thomas Jefferson, an avid anti-Federalist, when as president, he completed, based on an interpretation of “implied powers” in the Constitution, the Louisiana Purchase. Mr. Bentinck might find it hard to explain how Marshall and Jefferson ended up on the same side on this controversial issue. John Marshall was, according to his splendid biographer, Jean Edward Smith, a “Definer of a Nation.” Marshall was more than that. He was an American immortal and a man that all patriots should feel deeply indebted to for his contributions to the growth, strength, and stability of our republic. WILLIAM HUGHES BALTIMORE

‘Let Them Eat Cake’? Regarding Nesta Webster’s article on Marie Antoinette (TBR Jan./Feb. 2002) there is another myth to be debunked. The original version of the legend has it that, when told that the poor people of France were suffering from lack of bread, the queen said, “Let them eat brioche.” “Brioche” at that time, in French, did not mean what it does today in English. English brioche is a rich dough, with eggs and butter, used in making breakfast rolls and tea rolls, plain or fancy. However, in French the same word meant “pot scrapings.” It was a custom at the time for French bakers, at the end of each day, to provide their pot scrapings to the poor, as a form of charity. In any case, the French word for cake is “gateau,” which was never used in the legend,

although what has come down to us, which we hear all the time, is, “Let them eat cake.” This bunkum is of the same order as the belief in the tale of young George Washington and the cherry tree, concocted out of the whole cloth—or like that other royalty-and-cakes tall tale, of King Alfred “burning the cakes.” Not only is the legend mistranslated and misquoted, but it is wrong to start with. There is no evidence that Marie Antoinette ever said anything of the sort. In fact, the legend of a “grande princesse” making this insensitive remark dates from as early as 1740—15 years before Marie Antoinette was even born. The remark has been attributed to a “duchess of Tuscany” and was put into circulation as a smear against Marie Antoinette by unknown enemies of hers, of whom she had many—among not only revolutionaries and republicans, but also among the aristocracy. PATSY LANCASTER CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA

Swedish View of French Queen The Nesta Webster article on the alleged faithfulness of Marie Antoinette in the March/April issue is interesting. It should be noted in this context that in Sweden, the homeland of Axel von Fersen, the love story was accepted even before a street mob killed him in 1810. The Swedes take it as a historical fact and find it quite believable that MA was tired of the intrigues of the French court and her kind but impotent oaf of a husband. No one in Sweden has tried to confer sainthood on MA except Klinckowström. Alma Söderhielm considered publishing the Fersen diary in its original French but recognized that it would hardly sell so she decided on translating it into Swedish, with her comments. The first of four volumes came out in 1925, regrettably with some gaps. Those gaps could well have been the result of censorship by Klinckowström, labeled a prude by Stefan Zweig, probably correctly. The diary thus became less accessible to non-Swedes. The original is at the homestead of the Klinckowström family. In a medieval castle north of Stockholm is an exquisite bureau, a gift from MA to Fersen. She gave him a bureau. EVA ELINGS STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN

Mysteries of Angkor Reprised I enjoyed your article about the mysteries of Angkor in Cambodia (TBR Jan./Feb. 2002). I would like to add a few points, if I may. Was this high-speed building program just a case of megalomania, as most modern historians assert, resulting in the construction of many temples here, there and everywhere—an orgy of building, a brief, yet sustained period of hectic architectur(MORE LETTERS ON FOLLOWING PAGE)

MORE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)

al creation? I believe there was much more to it than that. “Why was Angkor sited where it was, in the middle of a ‘nowhere’ jungle, instead of perhaps dozens of other possible locations?” one may also wonder. Graham Hancock and Santha Faiia, among others, have addressed this problem. They note that the current prime meridian (0 degrees), decided by political factors, passes through Greenwich (London), with Giza, in Egypt, at 31.15 degrees East—a meaningless, seemingly random, number. This puts Angkor at 103.5 degrees East, also a meaningless number. However, if one places the prime meridian at Giza, which seems much more natural (and especially for ancient times), then Angkor is at 72 degrees East. This is a fifth of the way around the world. Hancock and Faiia believe such findings are no coincidence. This ties in with what Ivan White said in his letter about Rosslyn Chapel in the May/June 2002 TBR. They also note that the name “Angkor,” although supposedly a corruption of the Sanskrit word “nagara,” for “town,” is actually Egyptian: Ankh-Hor, meaning “The god Horus lives.” This theory would also account for many other aspects of Angkor, such as the precision with

which it was constructed, and the exact numbers of powerful figures (54 to each side) pulling on the gigantic “nagas” (serpents) in the balustrades of the five entrance bridges crossing the moat as you approach the lost city. The origins of Angkor are shrouded in mystery, but there is no doubt that the start of the great episode of temple-building at Angkor was in A.D. 802, at the instigation of Jayavarman II, a Khmer king whose origins are extremely obscure. First he underwent an unprecedented “initiation ceremony” and declared himself a “universal lord.” Later inscriptions style him as having been descended from “a perfectly pure race of kings”—an expression that was frequently applied in ancient Egypt to the Followers of Horus, who were thought of as superior beings who had produced the race of the pharaohs. BOB SCHWEIZER BOSTON

Swiss Patriot Now that you have told us the story of Marshal Carl Gustav Emil von Mannerheim (TBR, Nov./Dec. 2001), how about following this up with the story of Henri Guisan, commanderin-chief of the Swiss armed forces during World War II? Had it not been for Gen. Guisan,

Pictured, a very “Mayanlooking” temple in the Angkor Wat complex.

Switzerland might at some point in time have been invaded by the Nazis. On May 15, 1940, Guisan issued a remarkable command to the army: “Everywhere, where the order is to hold, it is the duty of conscience of each fighter, even if he depends on himself alone, to fight at his assigned position. The riflemen, if overtaken or surrounded, fight in their position until no more ammunition exists. Then cold steel is next. As long as a man has another cartridge or hand weapon to use, he does not yield.” FRANK H. STUCKERT BRIGHT, VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA

Books Received Books Received Books Received Books Received Denenberg, Dennis and Lorraine Roscoe. 2001. 50 American Heroes Every Kid Should Meet. Millbrook Press. 128 pages. ISBN: 0 7613 1645 0 Vyner, Tim. 2001. World Team. Roaring Brook. Pages not numbered. ISBN: 0 7613 1497 0. Many of us have worried about the methods liberal capitalism and public education use to mold, modify and alter the opinions, perceptions and attitudes of young people in order to fit them into the “new order” of humanity, or the recently discovered “emerging consensus” of “global civilization.” These two books, written for children (though the latter for a younger audience than the former) are designed to do just that. As America seeks to lead the “New World Order” in its own liberal direction, predictably, capitalist entities such as the above book publishing companies (they are actually the same company), seek to fill this created “demand.” The two books above are designed solely to manipulate and change the opinions of youngsters too young to have developed their own opinions. This is brainwashing, pure and simple. The first book concerns who we should call a “hero.” It is the predictable “PC” liberal pantheon of activists. Included among its warped sense of heroism are feminist Mary Cassatt, leftists Cesar Chavez, Bill Cosby, Rachel Carson, baseball star Roberto Clemente, Langston Hughes, I.M. Pei, John Muir, Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, Harry Truman, Yo-Yo Ma and Elie Wiesel. Clearly, the above were chosen because of their different racial characteristics and leftist political opinions. The phony “history” used to make these people “heroes” is mostly myth. A few of the traditional heroes were thrown in, but, from reading this book, it is clearly to blunt criticism and for token purposes. It also comes with an endorsement from Bill Bennett, clearly showing us where the “conservatives” are on this. The second book is propaganda as well, but a bit less crude. It is a story about soccer, concerning several different kids throughout the

80

J U LY / AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

world all dreaming of becoming champions. Each youngster is from a different country. The ultimate purpose of course is to inculcate into the minds of kids that they are no different from one another, and that language, ethnic, religious, political, racial or cultural differences are unimportant. Personal identity, therefore, is to be set by the oligarchs of global capitalism who profit from this twisted ideology. These are two primers for the creation of a “New World Order,” and these three authors are doing it by manipulating children. Booker, J.A. 1999. Blackshirts On-Sea. Brockingham Publications. 117 pages. ISBN: 0 9515253-1-X Extremely interesting set of recently discovered snap-shots of summer camp in West Sussex, England, in the 1930s. The summer camp was run by the Blackshirts of Oswald Mosley. Of course, the camp was run to provide an alternative to the regime manifested by the creeps mentioned above, providing children and young adults with an alternative lifestyle to the officially-sponsored multi-racialist silliness. The book is fascinating, and remains a completely unknown part of 20th century British political history. Wiebe, Robert H. 2001. Who We Are: A History of Popular Nationalism. Princeton University Press. 282 pages. ISBN: 0 691 09023 8 Excellent and every readable book about the nature of populism and nationalism. By “populism” is meant here the idea that nationalism is felt not merely be elites, activists, or intellectuals, but by ordinary people leading ordinary lives. In several countries around the globe, including Japan and Mexico, the author details popular opinions on the nature of personal and social identity. This is truly an important book, for it cuts to the heart of what TBR is attempting to do through revisionism.